ライフサイエンスコーパス: locoregional

1 .8 vs 19.0 months, P = 0.002) and more often locoregional (46.7% vs 16.2%, P = 0.007) in nature.

2 with lobectomy, no differences were noted in locoregional (5.5% v 5.1%, respectively; P = 1.00), dist

3 ontinues to be systemic therapy, but several locoregional adjunct therapies exist.

4 Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) is a locoregional-administration method leading to high-tissu

5 ar dystrophy type 2A after intramuscular and locoregional administrations.

6 For patients with locoregional advanced head and neck squamous cell carcin

7 tory nodules on a lower limb associated with locoregional anatomical changes and skin injury, with th

8 us (n = 5), overweight (n = 3), and combined locoregional anatomical changes in the lower limbs (n =

9 udies have evaluated alternative methods for locoregional and distant disease detection and staging.

10 e technique provided valuable information on locoregional and distant disease in this preliminary ret

11 cumulative incidence of competing mortality, locoregional and distant failure, and second malignancie

12 Locoregional and distant recurrence remains common and u

13 patients, (18)F-fluciclovine PET visualized locoregional and distant spread including that of lobula

14 st tumor imaging as well as for detection of locoregional and distant spread.

15 Recurrence (locoregional and distant) of MCC and patient survival (o

16 modal imaging study was the investigation of locoregional and remote relationships between metabolism

17 Here we show that locoregional and systemic delivery of a rAAV2/8 vector e

18 Despite progress in locoregional and systemic therapies, patient survival fr

19 s that are most likely to benefit from newer locoregional and systemic therapies.

20 ineteen patients with unresectable recurrent locoregional and/or distant metastatic SCCHN with progre

21 uced overall survival and increased overall, locoregional, and mixed tumor recurrence.

22 inimally invasive parathyroidectomy (ex-MIP; locoregional anesthesia, conscious sedation, and explora

23 Locoregional anesthesia, conscious sedation, and explora

24 Nevertheless, there has been progress in locoregional applications and in the treatment of minima

25 gside gains from lead-time bias and improved locoregional approaches and supportive care.

26 Locoregional breast cancers diagnosed in 2004 (n = 6,734

27 forty-three individuals with newly diagnosed locoregional breast or prostate cancer were recruited fr

28 d condition quality of care in patients with locoregional breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer diag

29 est (0.07-0.61), proportion of patients with locoregional cancer recurrence (1.1-46.2%), and in-hospi

30 mph-node harvest, in-hospital mortality, and locoregional cancer recurrence.

31 otic leak (SEAL) upon long-term survival and locoregional cancer recurrence.

32 Emerging data suggest that locoregional cancer therapeutic approaches with oncolyti

33 Unfortunately, elucidation of the locoregional changes that contribute to increased tumor

34 ouracil, after delivery by infusion into the locoregional circulation in a multifocal hepatic metasta

35 Among patients with locoregional clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at high ris

36 urvival (log-rank P = .026) in patients with locoregional colorectal cancer.

37 n-free survival (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.81), locoregional control (0.73, 0.64-0.83), distant control

38 ent week was also associated with better 3-y locoregional control (100% vs. 68%, P = 0.021).

39 The primary end point was locoregional control (LRC); secondary end points include

40 ; and this regimen led to excellent rates of locoregional control and disease-free survival.

41 Locoregional control and larynx preservation were signif

42 er studies are warranted to assess long-term locoregional control and late toxicities.

43 on with HPV-positive disease, with decreased locoregional control and overall survival (OS).

44 ovements have translated into improvement in locoregional control and overall survival probability, w

45 gh-dose radiotherapy plus cetuximab improves locoregional control and reduces mortality without incre

46 liver based on traditional considerations of locoregional control and survival benefit are modified b

47 The compliance to therapy was high, and the locoregional control and survival rates achieved compare

48 ve risk 1.44, 95% CI 1.01-2.05; p=0.045) and locoregional control at longest follow-up (1.26, 1.05-1.

49 however, an improvement in both survival and locoregional control can be identified, and this has led

50 Locoregional control did not differ between treatment gr

51 There was better locoregional control in the TPF group than in the PF gro

52 ned with radiotherapy significantly improved locoregional control of bladder cancer, as compared with

53 dy in this patient population reported a 91% locoregional control rate and 65% overall survival (OS)

54 on-free survival rate is 56%, and the 3-year locoregional control rate is 71%.

55 The 2-year locoregional control rate was 71%.

56 Locoregional control rates appear to be comparable to th

57 roups confirmed no statistical difference in locoregional control regardless of the type of locoregio

58 s decreasing toxicity and possibly enhancing locoregional control through dose escalation.

59 Locoregional control via surgery may improve outcomes fo

60 The median duration of locoregional control was 24.4 months among patients trea

61 Patients achieved the best local and locoregional control when SNB was coupled with a more th

62 overall survival, disease-free survival, and locoregional control, at 5 years and at longest follow-u

63 Rates of locoregional control, disease-free survival, and overall

64 egional therapy have similar 5-year rates of locoregional control, disease-free survival, and overall

65 With this improvement in locoregional control, distant metastases have become a m

66 ed groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival.

67 ractionated RT would be feasible and improve locoregional control, organ preservation, and progressio

68 Locoregional control, patterns of failure, and survivals

69 Locoregional control, survival, and acute toxicity with

70 The primary endpoint was locoregional control, with a secondary endpoint of survi

71 involved SNs remains the standard to achieve locoregional control.

72 tant chemoradiotherapy consistently improves locoregional control.

73 re overall and disease-specific survival and locoregional control.

74 3/sTGFBR3 enhanced TGF-beta signaling within locoregional DC populations and upregulated both the imm

75 Locoregional death of cancer cells (in vitro) is induced

76 Locoregional delivery induces high levels of microdystro

77 Our results thus show that locoregional delivery of a suicide gene by RCR vectors i

78 Other approaches include novel locoregional delivery techniques to overcome barriers of

79 accurate (91% vs. 67%) than CP in detecting locoregional disease and distant metastases (85% vs. 55%

80 PET is better than CP in detecting locoregional disease and distant metastases in all sites

81 y should be considered to improve control of locoregional disease and to overcome the inherent limita

82 Recurrence was defined by the return of locoregional disease and/or development of distant metas

83 , more than 80% of patients had localised or locoregional disease at presentation.

84 Whether the benefits of re-irradiation on locoregional disease control and survival outweigh its p

85 asured excision margins and SNB on local and locoregional disease control in patients with primary cu

86 radical cystectomy has an ability to improve locoregional disease control, assign pathologic nodal st

87 emoradiotherapy can now accomplish excellent locoregional disease control, but patient overall surviv

88 Treatment of RB for patients with locoregional disease was characterized as surgical thera

89 with curative intent due to the presence of locoregional disease, and 4 received palliative care due

90 In locoregional disease, the literature suggests that treat

91 At 2 years, rates of locoregional disease-free survival were 67% (95% confide

92 Clinicopathologic predictors of local and locoregional disease-free survival were investigated.

93 utcomes were disease-free survival, isolated locoregional disease-free survival, and distant disease-

94 bB2 was an independent negative predictor of locoregional disease-free survival.

95 The primary end point was survival free of locoregional disease.

96 clearly defined role in modern management of locoregional disease.

97 h NPV and specificity for excluding residual locoregional disease.

98 oplasms, or in settings involving minimal or locoregional disease.

99 s high accuracy in determining the extent of locoregional disease.

100 mpact on long-term survival of patients with locoregional disease.

101 ary end point was the duration of control of locoregional disease; secondary end points were overall

102 m assignment to first occurrence of invasive locoregional, distant, or contralateral breast cancer.

103 Progressive genomic hypomethylation and locoregional DNA hypermethylation induced by CSC coincid

104 active and relatively safe in patients with locoregional esophageal cancer.

105 rently the preferred management approach for locoregional esophageal cancer.

106 OS (72.9% v. 75.8%, respectively; P = .32), locoregional failure (19.9% v. 25.9%, respectively; P =

107 (HR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.03; P = .005), locoregional failure (HR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.98; P

108 Locoregional failure (LRF) after breast-conserving thera

109 Locoregional failure (LRF) and distant metastasis (DM) r

110 Locoregional failure (LRF) at first relapse was 8% in ar

111 diochemotherapy in those at moderate risk of locoregional failure (LRF) following surgery.

112 In this study, we assess patterns of locoregional failure (LRF) in LN-negative patients who u

113 anal canal (SCCAC) is characterized by high locoregional failure (LRF) rates after definitive chemor

114 anal canal (SCCAC) is characterized by high locoregional failure (LRF) rates after sphincter-preserv

115 vidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast c

116 rcome possible morbidity/mortality caused by locoregional failure (LRF).

117 nes from the cDNA microarray correlated with locoregional failure (two-sample t test, P < .05).

118 stomy-free survival [CFS]), CF, and relapse (locoregional failure [LRF], distant metastasis) in this

119 Locoregional failure after breast-conserving surgery is

120 two genes (MDM2 and erbB2) as predictors of locoregional failure in LPC patients treated with CRT.

121 ated to angiogenesis/metastasis that predict locoregional failure in patients with laryngopharyngeal

122 Locoregional failure occurred in nine of 35 patients.

123 The 5-year rate of locoregional failure was 10% for unicentric disease comp

124 with significant reductions of progression, locoregional failure, and distant failure compared with

125 The 5-y cumulative incidence of locoregional failure, distant failure, and death was 16.

126 red twenty-four patients (15.9%) experienced locoregional failure; 259 (9.7%) experienced IBTR, and 1

127 Most locoregional failures occurred within 5 years (62.2% for

128 The most common locoregional grade 3/4 toxicity during and after TRT was

129 matic injury (trauma patients) interact with locoregional health care systems.

130 phase 3 trial, we assigned 615 patients with locoregional, high-risk clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma

131 cal [hazard ratio (HR), 0.91; P < 0.001) and locoregional (HR, 0.97; P = 0.042) tumor control on mult

132 Fourteen days after locoregional infusion, systemic administration of 5FC re

133 or biology, radiographic imaging techniques, locoregional interventional treatments, and immunosuppre

134 cell carcinoma (HNSCC) has a proclivity for locoregional invasion.

135 Our retrospective data indicate that locoregional LND improves tumor staging and leads to a f

136 The impact of a locoregional lymph node dissection (LND) has never been

137 bdomyosarcoma Study) III and IV patients had locoregional lymph node involvement at diagnosis.

138 etect T3b disease or higher and, especially, locoregional lymph node metastases.

139 ne mutation is a significant risk factor for locoregional lymph node metastasis and has potential uti

140 ll cancer displays a marked predilection for locoregional lymph node metastasis.

141 otocol with (18)F-FDG PET/CT for primary and locoregional lymph node staging in NSCLC patients using

142 ease in the prostate bed in 27% of patients, locoregional lymph nodes in 39%, and distant metastatic

143 Determining whether cancer has spread to locoregional lymph nodes is a critical step in the initi

144 re tumor size of smaller than 5 cm, negative locoregional lymph nodes, age less than 10 years, low IR

145 HNSCCs often metastasize to locoregional lymph nodes, and lymph node involvement rep

146 cell carcinomas (HNSCC) often metastasize to locoregional lymph nodes, and lymph node involvement rep

147 herapy in organ-confined disease, staging of locoregional lymph nodes, detection of locally recurrent

148 c distribution to antigen-matched tumors and locoregional lymph nodes, followed by a more promiscuous

149 ent in clinical specimens of HNSCCs invading locoregional lymph nodes.

150 f life and cosmetic outcomes after different locoregional management approaches, as perceived by pati

151 At present, the integration of subtypes in locoregional management decisions is still in its infanc

152 pted as viable alternatives to mastectomy in locoregional management of breast cancer.

153 s regarding the use of radiotherapy for, and locoregional management of, women with triple-negative b

154 ns based on subtypes are available, standard locoregional management principles should be adhered to.

155 e of systemic chemotherapy before definitive locoregional management, or induction chemotherapy, has

156 ntratumoral immune reaction in stage IV (non-locoregional) melanoma metastases.

157 r artifact; 3, indeterminate; 4, most likely locoregional metastases in the neck bed; 5, most likely

158 nosis (initial; n = 2,042), or who developed locoregional metastasis as a first recurrence some time

159 nitial PET/CT features of primary tumour and locoregional metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) in breast canc

160 Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced locoregional multiple nodular panniculitis without septi

161 hese patients, 92 patients had metastases in locoregional nodes, 114 patients in truncal nodes, 21 pa

162 astases, 35 months for metastases limited to locoregional nodes, 16 months for positive truncal nodes

163 We describe P aeruginosa-induced locoregional nodular panniculitis as a distinct entity.

164 recurrence ( P < .001) but not in those with locoregional-only recurrence ( P = .353).

165 han in lung-only recurrence (18.2 months) or locoregional-only recurrence (24.7 months; P = .001).

166 Recurrence was defined as any locoregional or distant breast event, or both.

167 We discuss the findings, locoregional or distant, that can be expected in differe

168 At a median follow-up time of 33 months, locoregional or systemic disease progression was observe

169 acy of cancer staging and early detection of locoregional or systemic recurrence.

170 l (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.15-1.73; P = 0.011), locoregional (OR = 1.56; 95% CI: 1.05-2.24; P = 0.030),

171 ar local progression-free (PF), regional PF, locoregional PF, and distant metastasis-free rates were

172 Locoregional plus distant 5-year invasive RFI was 97.0%

173 r disease progression whereas distant versus locoregional progression (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28 to 3.09

174 e given radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for locoregional progression or death, 0.68; P=0.005).

175 ssignments, 10-year cumulative incidences of locoregional progression were 6% (95% CI, 4.3% to 8.0%)

176 .5 years (IQR 2.1-2.9), the estimated 2 year locoregional progression-free interval was 83.7% (95% CI

177 ge 66 years or older who were diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer during 1992 to 1999 and obs

178 GnRH agonist treatment for men with locoregional prostate cancer may be associated with an i

179 Planned treatment for all patients included locoregional radiation therapy.

180 three cycles of taxane chemotherapy and then locoregional radiotherapy.

181 rs, there were no significant differences in locoregional recurrence (5.5% vs. 9.3%; P=0.296), cancer

182 ent was associated with a decreased risk for locoregional recurrence (AHR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.6]), wh

183 significance as an independent predictor of locoregional recurrence (HR = 3.57, 95% CI 0.93-13.6, P

184 o did not have an SNB were at higher risk of locoregional recurrence (HR, 1.67; P = 0.003).

185 The limited information on predictors of locoregional recurrence (LRR) after neoadjuvant chemothe

186 Preoperative CRT reduced locoregional recurrence (LRR) from 34% to 14% (P < .001)

187 ated the association between RS and risk for locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients with node-nega

188 were identified in regional recurrence (RR), locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM),

189 Cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence (LRR), use of elective RT, and R

190 ral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and other locoregional recurrence (oLRR) were calculated, along wi

191 ral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and other locoregional recurrence (oLRR) were calculated.

192 The primary end point was locoregional recurrence 3 years after the index surgery.

193 umulative probability at 5 years was 44% for locoregional recurrence and 29% for distant metastases.

194 h rectal cancer was associated with rates of locoregional recurrence and disease-free and overall sur

195 Locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis were incl

196 Three (7%) patients had locoregional recurrence and one (2%) had distant metasta

197 significant predictors of outcome, including locoregional recurrence and overall survival.

198 al lymph node metastases are associated with locoregional recurrence and, when they involve either si

199 atment that substantially affect the risk of locoregional recurrence could also affect long-term brea

200 G) Z0011 trial demonstrated no difference in locoregional recurrence for patients with positive senti

201 d has potential utility for the detection of locoregional recurrence from an early stage.

202 uman c-Met, for the detection of early-stage locoregional recurrence in a human basal-like breast can

203 lly over prolonged periods for prevention of locoregional recurrence in colorectal cancer.

204 Locoregional recurrence occurred in only 7 patients (6.7

205 Locoregional recurrence of breast cancer poses significa

206 east-conserving therapy had no difference in locoregional recurrence or survival after SLN biopsy alo

207 ifference was noted in overall survival, and locoregional recurrence rate between the local-regional

208 At 3 years, the locoregional recurrence rate was 5.0% in the two groups

209 Locoregional recurrence rates after BCT have decreased o

210 for improving overall survival and lowering locoregional recurrence rates.

211 re- and post-NAC stage in predicting risk of locoregional recurrence remains an area of controversy.

212 We now report long-term locoregional recurrence results.

213 ation therapy because data suggest increased locoregional recurrence risks (relative to luminal subty

214 Ten-year cumulative locoregional recurrence was 6.2% with ALND and 5.3% with

215 T-stage, and distal and diffuse type tumors; locoregional recurrence was associated with male gender

216 Locoregional recurrence was evaluated.

217 Locoregional recurrence was prospectively evaluated and

218 2%); 5-year actuarial distant metastasis and locoregional recurrence were 54% (n = 36) and 28% (n = 2

219 the previously observed small improvement in locoregional recurrence with the addition of radiation t

220 r recurrence in the pelvic or perineal area (locoregional recurrence) and survival after laparoscopic

221 Thirty-three patients (43%) developed locoregional recurrence, and 20 patients (26%) developed

222 neoadjuvant chemotherapy predict the risk of locoregional recurrence, and can be used to tailor recom

223 liver-only recurrence, but not in those with locoregional recurrence, which demonstrates a need for c

224 The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival rates were also no

225 low-up of 36 months, 3-year disease-free and locoregional recurrence-free survivals were 88% and 96%,

226 val (PFS), actuarial distant metastasis, and locoregional recurrence.

227 distant recurrence however failed to affect locoregional recurrence.

228 biopsy and tamoxifen in disease management; locoregional recurrence; and special clinical scenarios

229 To help relate the effect on local (ie, locoregional) recurrence to that on breast cancer mortal

230 Patients with isolated locoregional recurrences (ILRR) of breast cancer have a

231 rts were analyzed for the risk assessment of locoregional recurrences (LR) and distant metastases (DM

232 After surgical treatment, multiple locoregional recurrences are common; recurrences outside

233 diagnostic surgical procedures, incidence of locoregional recurrences or distant metastases, disease-

234 r a median follow-up of 37 months, local and locoregional recurrences were observed in 48 (7.6%) and

235 oxic effects of high-dose re-irradiation for locoregional recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer.

236 rcinoma patients with previously irradiated, locoregional recurrent or second primary tumors in the h

237 The estimated 2-year locoregional relapse and distant metastasis rates were 3

238 Assessment of expected locoregional relapse risk informs the magnitude and time

239 re associated with an increased frequency of locoregional relapse, but no significant difference in o

240 ET/CT on survival outcomes-overall survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, clinical relapse-fre

241 The 2-y overall survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, cRFS, and bRFS were

242 antial reduction in both overall relapse and locoregional relapse.

243 ant metastases (P = .016) than with isolated locoregional relapses (P = .97).

244 hat might lead to death, such as distant and locoregional relapses outside the preserved breast-witho

245 acy and safety of sunitinib in patients with locoregional renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor

246 Locoregional response was correlated to the gene express

247 firmed MDM2 and erbB2 as being predictive of locoregional response.

248 ssion because radiation provides an absolute locoregional risk reduction.

249 ry 21 days with intrathecal methotrexate and locoregional RT is the current international standard of

250 hich patients benefit the most from local or locoregional RT vs those at very low risk for recurrence

251 6 associated with their release in patients' locoregional sera.

252 ion efficiency of siRNA-lipoplexes under the locoregional setting in vivo (i.e., intraperitoneal trea

253 Eight patients progressed in locoregional sites, three in distant, and one in both.

254 the sensitivity of the pathologic staging of locoregional spread using a beta-binomial model and deve

255 For advanced esophageal cancer, locoregional staging is best performed with EUS-FNA, wit

256 patients who were treated with transarterial locoregional therapies (chemoembolization or radioemboli

257 s of patients with HCC who were treated with locoregional therapies (LRTs) (chemoembolization and rad

258 n therapies such as algorithms consisting of locoregional therapies and systemic or radiation therapi

259 s presenting with local disease treated with locoregional therapies die without developing extrahepat

260 The evaluation of tumor viability after such locoregional therapies is essential to directing hepatoc

261 iod, 285 patients treated with transarterial locoregional therapies underwent scheduled imaging follo

262 ents with active HCC unsuitable for standard locoregional therapies were conducted from 2004 to 2010.

263 Recent advances in locoregional therapies, radiation, and systemic therapie

264 The other treatment strategies include locoregional therapies, radiation, and systemic therapy

265 B HCC who were unfit or failed to respond to locoregional therapies, well compensated cirrhosis, and

266 erall survival (OS) in patients treated with locoregional therapies.

267 ions with curative intent potential for some locoregional therapies.

268 aughters, the approach is ideally suited for locoregional therapy (e.g., intraperitoneal, intrahepati

269 valuate the effect of pretransplant bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) on hepatocellular carcinoma (

270 often treated while on the waiting list with locoregional therapy (LRT), which is aimed at either pre

271 Prognosis after locoregional therapy and benefit from adjuvant systemic

272 d support the use of AFP response seen after locoregional therapy as an ancillary method of assessing

273 potential clinical implications relative to locoregional therapy decisions for patients with node-ne

274 Available data suggest that locoregional therapy decisions should be based on both t

275 l staging, monitoring of tumor response, and locoregional therapy for patients with breast cancer tre

276 ed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by locoregional therapy have similar 5-year rates of locore

277 rrounds the prognosis of these patients with locoregional therapy only and the need for adjuvant syst

278 Only one prior systemic or locoregional therapy was allowed.

279 Only one prior systemic or locoregional therapy was allowed.

280 Locoregional therapy with curative intent (CLRT) followe

281 sis, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, history of locoregional therapy, and Milan criteria status.

282 sease that was refractory or not amenable to locoregional therapy, had Child-Pugh A liver disease, an

283 After locoregional therapy, patients received eight cycles of

284 HCC outside MC who received downstaging with locoregional therapy.

285 Locoregional transcatheter and ablative therapies contin

286 e manner an overview of the most widely used locoregional transcatheter and ablative therapies for so

287 0% of patients will relapse after definitive locoregional treatment and eventually succumb to their d

288 tment compared with melphalan ILP allows for locoregional treatment anywhere a catheter can be placed

289 the further tailoring of future systemic and locoregional treatment decisions by response assessment.

290 eline mutation status can be useful to guide locoregional treatment decisions.

291 native liver, due to effectiveness of pre-LT locoregional treatment or liver resection, is an intrigu

292 se response to treatment and how to optimize locoregional treatment.

293 coregional control regardless of the type of locoregional treatment.

294 First, locoregional tumor behavior may be more indolent in olde

295 , distant metastases-free survival (DM), and locoregional tumor control (LRC) was performed.

296 6.1 years), the estimated 1-year and 2-year locoregional tumor control rates are 66% and 57%, respec

297 can be performed safely for OPC and has high locoregional tumor control rates.

298 astomas had higher infiltration of TAMs than locoregional tumors, and metastatic tumors diagnosed in

299 Recurrence subgroups, those with locoregional versus distant disease and those younger ve

300 sotheliomas in the context of both local and locoregional viral delivery.