ライフサイエンスコーパス: localized prostate cancer

1 ominate as the main treatment approaches for localized prostate cancer.

2 e option in future treatment of early-stage, localized prostate cancer.

3 reatment in elderly men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.

4 conservative management for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

5 ic antigen level) in high-risk patients with localized prostate cancer.

6 of care at many centers for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

7 e incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer.

8 had considerable impact on the management of localized prostate cancer.

9 t ADT in prostatectomy samples from men with localized prostate cancer.

10 asive surgical option to their patients with localized prostate cancer.

11 ly equivalent across standard treatments for localized prostate cancer.

12 n increase in the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer.

13 ve management strategies in elderly men with localized prostate cancer.

14 intained a cardinal role in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

15 iagnosis among men with aggressively treated localized prostate cancer.

16 agement as an option for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

17 he prediction of noncancer death in men with localized prostate cancer.

18 f lung cancer to 98% for 3,325 patients with localized prostate cancer.

19 urvival benefit for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

20 considering radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

21 ct of radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer.

22 radiation are the most common treatments for localized prostate cancer.

23 ostic indicators in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

24 381 patients who underwent RT for clinically localized prostate cancer.

25 Radiation is an effective means of treating localized prostate cancer.

26 node positivity in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

27 06 as a neoadjuvant agent with radiation for localized prostate cancer.

28 ct metastatic disease in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

29 had been initially diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer.

30 outcome after external-beam radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer.

31 and overall survival in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

32 obtained as part of the routine work-up for localized prostate cancer.

33 t pathological stage for a group of men with localized prostate cancer.

34 nsity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer.

35 radiotherapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

36 otherapy (RT) for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer.

37 tly higher than the incidence among men with localized prostate cancer.

38 cal therapy a viable option for treatment of localized prostate cancer.

39 nefit from PADT for most men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

40 All men were newly diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer.

41 ly in CRPC and not benign prostate tissue or localized prostate cancer.

42 serum and tissue biomarkers in patients with localized prostate cancer.

43 radical treatment when first diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.

44 total cholesterol, and apoptosis in men with localized prostate cancer.

45 posed as management strategies for low-risk, localized prostate cancer.

46 ical prostatectomy among men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

47 ificantly overexpressed in metastatic versus localized prostate cancer.

48 her AS is an appropriate option for men with localized prostate cancer.

49 ll as the benefits and harms of treatment of localized prostate cancer.

50 decision regret among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer.

51 downregulated in clinical metastatic versus localized prostate cancer.

52 ar after primary or salvage radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

53 gression among men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer.

54 n, among 1,455 men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer.

55 n treatments compared with no treatments for localized prostate cancer.

56 ith other competing therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer.

57 e of robotics in the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

58 followed by alendronate therapy in men with localized prostate cancer.

59 ty providing excellent control of clinically localized prostate cancer.

60 counseling patients regarding treatment for localized prostate cancer.

61 etabolomics data comparing metastatic versus localized prostate cancers.

62 patient) and 11 treatment-naive, high-grade localized prostate cancers.

63 atural history of PSA-detected, nonpalpable, localized prostate cancer?

64 ssion was detected in benign prostate (83%), localized prostate cancer (100%), and lymph node metasta

65 juvant ADT for locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer, a BMD test followed by select

66 ive primary androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer, a setting in which the benefi

67 patients with low-risk (Gleason score </= 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the re

68 adiation therapy is an effective therapy for localized prostate cancer, although failures occur at hi

69 ilized as a prognostic tool in patients with localized prostate cancer and at the time of serologic r

70 tic prostate cancer compared with clinically localized prostate cancer and benign prostate tissue.

71 147 (3.4%) prostate cancers (both untreated localized prostate cancer and CRPC), and showed that mut

72 cal control is paramount, such as recurrent, localized prostate cancer and malignant gliomas.

73 radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer and may be useful in counselin

74 e to distinguish benign prostate, clinically localized prostate cancer and metastatic disease.

75 we review the pathologic characteristics of localized prostate cancer and methods to identify patien

76 107 men with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer and negative conventional imag

77 All men were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and received no surgery or rad

78 tissue levels from benign prostate tissue to localized prostate cancer and subsequently metastatic di

79 estimate the threat posed by newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer and the threat posed by compet

80 tality between men who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer and those who were treated wit

81 -1 expression was significantly increased in localized prostate cancer and was present in most prosta

82 Importantly, 38% of clinically localized prostate cancers and 27% of metastatic prostat

83 be of uncertain benefit (primary therapy for localized prostate cancer), and in a subgroup in which u

84 ved a PSA test; 2664 received a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer, and 1643 agreed to undergo ra

85 iles of normal adjacent prostate (NAP), BPH, localized prostate cancer, and metastatic, hormone-refra

86 ty furthermore distinguishes metastatic from localized prostate cancer, and pathway manipulation can

87 may provide useful prognostic information in localized prostate cancer, and they need to be validated

88 Several options exist for the treatment of localized prostate cancer, and this review discusses the

89 was found that m-calpain was up-regulated in localized prostate cancer, and to an even higher degree

90 The majority of men treated for localized prostate cancer are cured of their disease.

91 measures comparing treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer are lacking.

92 entions and to help determine which men with localized prostate cancer are most likely to benefit fro

93 ical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer at The Johns Hopkins Hospital

94 specimens of 338 men treated for clinically localized prostate cancer between 1995 and 1998 with rad

95 patients who underwent radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer between 2001 and 2012 with hei

96 ho were age </= 75 years when diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between October 1994 and Octob

97 apy (PADT) is often used to treat clinically localized prostate cancer, but its effects on cause-spec

98 881 patients who underwent RP for clinically-localized prostate cancer by two high-volume surgeons.

99 Failure to control localized prostate cancer can result not only in localiz

100 were somatically lost in 37.5% of clinically localized prostate cancer cells (6 of 16) and 66.7% of m

101 n active treatment approach over another for localized prostate cancer, clinician and patient prefere

102 Nonetheless, men treated for localized prostate cancer commonly had declines in all f

103 ces in staining intensity between clinically localized prostate cancer compared with benign prostate

104 d-quality trial found that prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer decreased risk for prostate ca

105 therapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer decreases the number of deaths

106 s of surgery versus observation for men with localized prostate cancer detected by means of prostate-

107 uces disease-specific mortality for men with localized prostate cancer detected clinically.

108 Among men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era

109 lowing conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 1992 through 20

110 received definitive surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2002 to 2005.

111 In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, each treatment strategy was a

112 cancer cell lines/xenografts and nine of 89 localized prostate cancers (eleven of 119 or 9% cancers)

113 cohort of 881 patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer enrolled in the North Carolina

114 Among men with localized prostate cancer, especially with low- or inter

115 ort on a population-based cohort of men with localized prostate cancers followed by expectant (watchf

116 expression to be strongest in the clinically localized prostate cancer, followed by the metastatic tu

117 tive series of 734 men who underwent RRP for localized prostate cancer from 1992 through February 200

118 ite, Hispanic, and African-American men with localized prostate cancer from six US cancer registries

119 mean age, 60 years; range, 49-70 years) with localized prostate cancer (Gleason score</=7, prostate-s

120 he Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for dev

121 he Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifyin

122 he Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 20

123 he current cohort comprised 1655 men in whom localized prostate cancer had been diagnosed between the

124 portance of PSA testing for the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer has become well established in

125 t in the management of high-grade clinically localized prostate cancer has been shown for 70 Gy radia

126 node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer has long been an established p

127 No one treatment for localized prostate cancer has proven superior to date.

128 Treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer have expanded and the role of

129 gnificant number of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer have prostate cells detectable

130 Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have to decide among treatment

131 Among men with localized prostate cancer, hazard ratios of 2.07 (95% co

132 ostatectomy reduces mortality among men with localized prostate cancer; however, important questions

133 eported outcome among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer; however, our results suggest

134 the treatment armamentarium of early stage, localized prostate cancer in appropriately selected cand

135 5-year PSA outcomes for men with clinically localized prostate cancer in intermediate- and high-risk

136 ased study on use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer in Sweden.

137 e addition of NAAD to TIPPB in patients with localized prostate cancer in this retrospective matched-

138 went a radical prostatectomy, for clinically localized prostate cancer, in the Department of Urology

139 risk stratification for men with clinically localized prostate cancer, including those with low-risk

140 ward trend in pathologic stage in clinically localized prostate cancer, independent of preoperative P

141 Localized prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed because

142 Although the prognosis for clinically localized prostate cancer is now favorable, there are st

143 Nowadays the treatment paradigm for localized prostate cancer is to distinguish patients wit

144 The appropriate therapy for men with localized prostate cancer is uncertain.

145 ent risk groups for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the PSA era.

146 ndividual urologist rates of observation for localized prostate cancer may be a valuable performance

147 uary 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer (mean age, 67 years; median PS

148 Among patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 77 years), 7867 (

149 Following treatment for localized prostate cancer, men are monitored with serial

150 ber of effective therapies are available for localized prostate cancer, metastatic prostate cancer is

151 nd radiation treatments exist for clinically localized prostate cancer, metastatic prostate cancer re

152 ow that E2F1 expression is low in benign and localized prostate cancer, modestly elevated in metastat

153 rostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (n = 75), localized prostate cancer (n = 116), and metastatic pros

154 In patients with localized prostate cancer, neither margin status nor bio

155 CR tumors versus the tumors of patients with localized prostate cancer not treated with androgen depr

156 Purpose Men with localized prostate cancer often are treated with externa

157 Patients with clinically localized prostate cancer often undergo multiple therapi

158 metastatic prostate cancer as compared with localized prostate cancer or benign prostatic tissues, b

159 te cancer patients relative to patients with localized prostate cancer or controls.

160 tly increased risk for advanced, but not for localized, prostate cancer (OR, 2.90; 95% confidence int

161 ed the prevalence of 4.6% among 499 men with localized prostate cancer (P<0.001), including men with

162 A growing segment of the localized prostate cancer patient population has very lo

163 Prevention Trial (PCPT) and from clinically localized prostate cancer patients studied for long-term

164 usion partners in a cohort of 110 clinically localized prostate cancer patients.

165 In deciding on a treatment for localized prostate cancer, patients must weigh the risks

166 atient-reported outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer, patterns of severity, recover

167 Prostatectomy or radiation for localized prostate cancer (PC) can fail in up to 15% to

168 of patients treated with curative intent for localized prostate cancer (PC) experience biochemical re

169 Dose-escalated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer (PCa) has a clear therapeutic

170 sive evidence suggesting that black men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) have worse cancer-specif

171 therapy (RT) in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).

172 nsitive marker for colorectal and clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).

173 ignificantly decreased in CRPC compared with localized prostate cancer (PCa).

174 For patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, preoperative plasma IGFBP-2 l

175 In patients with localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy and rad

176 In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was ass

177 From 1975 to 1992, 1,465 men with clinically localized prostate cancer received radiation therapy on

178 perior long-term cancer control for men with localized prostate cancer receiving high-dose versus con

179 rgo radiation for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer relapse biochemically within 5

180 rsal, downregulation of miRNAs in clinically localized prostate cancer relative to benign peripheral

181 Despite considerable advances, high-risk localized prostate cancer remains an extremely refractor

182 Clinically localized prostate cancer samples with high Gleason grad

183 tive for MTA1 (83%) compared with clinically localized prostate cancer (score = 2.8/4, 63% positive c

184 proton radiation for 393 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (stage T1b-T2b, prostate-speci

185 70 years with locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer starting a 2-year course of AD

186 ficantly reduced as compared with those with localized prostate cancer, suggesting that the function

187 nearly 20 years of follow-up among men with localized prostate cancer, surgery was not associated wi

188 clusion MFS is a strong surrogate for OS for localized prostate cancer that is associated with a sign

189 ubstantial variation exists in management of localized prostate cancer that is not explained by measu

190 tic prostate cancer; in addition, clinically localized prostate cancers that express higher concentra

191 nds, hold promise to reduce the morbidity of localized prostate cancer therapy.

192 most men are diagnosed with readily curable localized prostate cancer, those with high-risk features

193 Other methods for treating localized prostate cancer (three-dimensional conformal r

194 We studied 1095 men with localized prostate cancer to assess whether the rate of

195 uality comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate cancer to help guide treatment decisi

196 It is now clear that progression from localized prostate cancer to incurable castrate-resistan

197 uary 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or ob

198 e bone marrow of 86 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated by radical prostatecto

199 hundred thirty-six patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated from 1966 to 1974 with

200 ata suggest that for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer treated with radiation, 4 mont

201 mical recurrence in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatec

202 stant metastases (DM) rates in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with RP or EBRT at a s

203 dverse effects of contemporary approaches to localized prostate cancer treatment could inform shared

204 Among men with clinically localized prostate cancer, treatment with higher-dose ra

205 f the comparative effectiveness and harms of localized prostate cancer treatments is difficult becaus

206 The comparative effectiveness of localized prostate cancer treatments is largely unknown.

207 pact of treatment to patients choosing among localized prostate cancer treatments.

208 tage or biochemical failure in patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatecto

209 Twelve patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent immediate in situ pr

210 Two hundred twenty-four men with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent ultrasound-guided sy

211 Between 1989 and 1995, 213 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with a 3-month co

212 1972 to 1999, 1,469 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with radical radi

213 vival among the majority of elderly men with localized prostate cancer when compared with conservativ

214 ncreased approximately 18-fold in clinically localized prostate cancers when compared to normal prost

215 FoxA1 expression is slightly upregulated in localized prostate cancer wherein cell proliferation is

216 ecurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the fram

217 tify men with newly diagnosed and clinically localized prostate cancer who are at high risk for early

218 mutations in DNA-repair genes among men with localized prostate cancer who are unselected for family

219 ed with no PADT for most men with clinically localized prostate cancer who did not receive curative i

220 ge comparative studies involving adults with localized prostate cancer who either had first-line radi

221 The proportion of black patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent RP within 90 day

222 Eligibility included localized prostate cancer with an elevated prostate-spec

223 Brachytherapy has emerged as a modality for localized prostate cancer with outcomes and toxicity bei

224 prostate cancer as well as the management of localized prostate cancer with radiation.

225 osed in 2011-2012 with clinical stage cT1-2, localized prostate cancer, with prostate-specific antige