ライフサイエンスコーパス: oral mucositis

1 toxicities (most often skin, respiratory, or oral mucositis).

2 with a history of oral GVHD and a history of oral mucositis.

3 lial cell growth in the tongues of mice with oral mucositis.

4 he expression of BAX in mice with IR-induced oral mucositis.

5 t no effective therapies to treat or prevent oral mucositis.

6 nt for cancer, does oral cryotherapy prevent oral mucositis?

7 ls), acneiform rash (48 [10%] vs one [<1%]), oral mucositis (16 [3%] vs none), and fatigue (13 [3%] v

8 5 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8

9 icant reductions in the incidence of grade 4 oral mucositis (20 percent vs. 62 percent, P<0.001), pat

10 nic fever (10%) and during XPE, grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis (54%) and hypomagnesemia (39%).

11 romoter, were resistant to radiation-induced oral mucositis, a painful oral ulceration.

12 ifermin reduced the duration and severity of oral mucositis after intensive chemotherapy and radiothe

13 Oral mucositis alters gene expression patterns, inhibits

14 dification by caspase-3 following IR-induced oral mucositis and subsequently promotes the expression

15 ) describe the current preclinical models of oral mucositis and their contribution to the understandi

16 regulation of mRNA turnover and apoptosis in oral mucositis, and our data suggest that blocking the c

17 reduced the incidence and duration of severe oral mucositis, as assessed by both clinicians and patie

18 tis was less severe in the Tac/Sir arm (peak Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale score 0.70 vs 0.96, P <

19 e RSpo1 to be a potent therapeutic agent for oral mucositis by enhancing basal layer epithelial regen

20 are in stage III clinical trials to prevent oral mucositis caused by radiation or chemo-therapy.

21 Patients completed a daily questionnaire (Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire [OMDQ]) evaluating MT

22 me care group in relation to the symptoms of oral mucositis, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, pain, fa

23 of 40 patients), fatigue (eight [20%]), and oral mucositis (eight [20%]).

24 be considered at greater risk of developing oral mucositis following HCT.

25 While oral mucositis has been well-described, its pathophysiol

26 Oral mucositis has emerged as a dose-limiting toxicity i

27 ataemia in 16 (9%), lymphopenia in 25 (14%), oral mucositis in 19 (11%), and thrombocytopenia in 19 (

28 with that of a placebo on the development of oral mucositis in 212 patients with hematologic cancers;

29 yotherapy is effective for the prevention of oral mucositis in adults receiving fluorouracil-based ch

30 id cancers, and for the prevention of severe oral mucositis in adults receiving high-dose melphalan-b

31 and therapeutic effects on radiation-induced oral mucositis in mice.

32 reating chemotherapy or radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in several mouse models.

33 MTX toxicity measures included the oral mucositis index (OMI), speed of engraftment (platel

34 trained examiner every 2 to 3 days using the Oral Mucositis Index (OMI).

35 Oral mucositis is a common toxicity of high-dose chemoth

36 Oral mucositis is a complication of intensive chemothera

37 Oral mucositis is a frequent and potentially severe comp

38 Oral mucositis is a nearly universal and often severe co

39 Oral mucositis is a significant problem in cancer patien

40 Oral mucositis is associated with significantly worse cl

41 igue (five [13%] vs six [15%] vs six [15%]), oral mucositis (none vs four [10%] vs one [3%]), and thr

42 urrence of mucositis, the median duration of oral mucositis of WHO grade 3 or 4 was 3 days (range, 0

43 The incidence of oral mucositis of World Health Organization (WHO) grade

44 Oral mucositis (OM) is a debilitating toxicity of chemor

45 Oral mucositis (OM) is a serious and acute side effect i

46 Painful oral mucositis (OM) is a significant toxicity during rad

47 Oral mucositis (OM) is among the most common, painful, a

48 ention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (OM).

49 (3) describe the proposed pathophysiology of oral mucositis pain and preclinical modeling of oral muc

50 l mucositis pain and preclinical modeling of oral mucositis pain.

51 For patients with oral mucositis, pain is the most distressing symptom, le

52 ntified new molecular mechanisms involved in oral mucositis pathogenesis, and our data suggest an alt

53 e of its importance in the clinical setting, oral mucositis remains under extensive laboratory and cl

54 his study was to evaluate factors predicting oral mucositis severity among 133 patients undergoing al

55 ) may serve as an alternative tool to assess oral mucositis severity in clinical trials.

56 neutropenia via growth factors have elevated oral mucositis to a prominent toxicity of cancer therapy

57 ere compared with clinicians' assessments of oral mucositis using the objective scales.

58 Oral mucositis was assessed by examination on days 1, 4,

59 Oral mucositis was evaluated daily for 28 days after tra

60 Oral mucositis was measured by a trained examiner every

61 Grade 2 to 3 oral mucositis was the predominant nonhematopoietic toxi

62 olution could alleviate chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis, we developed a prospective trial to test

63 activation, which is known to contribute to oral mucositis, we found activated transforming growth f

64 d, with 3 DLTs across all schedules (grade 3 oral mucositis x 2; grade 4 sepsis x 1).