ライフサイエンスコーパス: TNM staging

1 ved patient subcategorization beyond current TNM staging.

2 tegories of greater utility than traditional TNM staging.

3 ndependent of clinical covariates, including TNM staging, and was associated with a poor therapeutic

4 Personal View addresses whether the current TNM staging classification accurately represents a disti

5 ancer (AJCC) staging manual has introduced a TNM staging classification for jejunal-ileal (midgut) ne

6 l (seventh edition) has introduced its first TNM staging classification for pancreatic neuroendocrine

7 The NET societies have recently proposed a TNM staging classification.

8 Study Group modified Tumor-Node-Metastases (TNM) Staging Classification.

9 with T1 lesions under both the 1987 and 1997 TNM staging criteria, no statistically significant diffe

10 vasion should be considered for inclusion in TNM staging criteria.

11 orized by both the 1987 and the revised 1997 TNM staging criteria.

12 oth the 1997 and 1987 tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging criteria.

13 histologic grade, incidental diagnosis, and TNM staging (European Neuroendocrine Tumors Society [ENE

14 tive (18)F-FDG-avid lesions and provided the TNM staging for the 5 patients referred for initial stag

15 TNM staging has made a major contribution to the clinica

16 TNM staging is an inadequate prognostic indicator of ind

17 Inclusion of C stage into the AJCC TNM staging of colon cancer revealed significant differe

18 TNM-staging of colorectal carcinomas (CRC) relies on the

19 (P = .006) and in tumors with more advanced TNM staging (P < .001).

20 However, there is debate whether TNM staging should be the only factor in considering if

21 The American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging showed limited prognostic usefulness, only b

22 cation was influenced by the key elements of TNM staging: simplicity, clinical usefulness, efficacy f

23 We evaluated associations with tumor status, TNM staging, survival prognosis, and response to adjuvan

24 incorporated TNP was superior to the current TNM staging system (P< .001).

25 is view provides a mechanistic basis for the TNM staging system and is the rationale for surgical res

26 The current AJCC TNM staging system classified 941 of these patients (28.

27 e current (seventh and eighth editions) AJCC TNM staging system correlates with survival for patients

28 The current AJCC TNM staging system could be improved with the new TNM gr

29 be considered for the future edition of the TNM staging system for esophageal cancer.

30 T category in the 7th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system for eyelid carcinoma correlates with

31 he American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system for medullary thyroid cancer (MTC).

32 The current AJCC TNM staging system for MTC appears to be less than optim

33 nion for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM staging system for OPC was developed for HPV-unrelat

34 The TNM staging system for primary OAL is useful for precise

35 yet to be a study using the most up-to-date TNM staging system for this rare but aggressive tumor.

36 r individual discrimination than the current TNM staging system in numerous patient tumor models.

37 The TNM staging system is currently the most extensively use

38 ow after preoperative chemoradiotherapy, the TNM staging system may not provide an accurate assessmen

39 (CEA) levels (C stage) into the conventional TNM staging system of colon cancer.

40 A TNM staging system that incorporated TNP reduced early-s

41 revealed that the prognostic accuracy of the TNM staging system that incorporated TNP was superior to

42 tional OPC N categories in the new AJCC/UICC TNM staging system that is currently being developed.

43 The seventh edition TNM staging system was compared with models supplementin

44 Increasing T category of the TNM staging system was predictive of DSS (P = .04) in pr

45 According to the TNM staging system, 43 of 57 (75.4%) had T2 tumors.

46 With the traditional TNM staging system, there was no difference in survival

47 iminating survival than was the current AJCC TNM staging system.

48 to survival than does the current AJCC/UICC TNM staging system.

49 nagement but are not included in the current TNM staging system.

50 RSS), and American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system.

51 the 1988 American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system.

52 re more distinct than under the current AJCC TNM staging system.

53 e authors sought to evaluate whether the new TNM staging systems proposed by the American Joint Commi

54 n included in the new tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging systems developed for the American Joint Co

55 tions in molecular pathways could supplement TNM staging to more accurately predict clinical outcome

56 oved the ability of Tumor, Node, Metastasis (TNM) staging to predict postrecurrence survival; MI was

57 min after injection, and in 9.2% a change in TNM staging was found.

58 ystem was compared with models supplementing TNM staging with additional demographic and tumor variab