ライフサイエンスコーパス: rectal cancer

1 referred for management of a newly diagnosed rectal cancer.

2 weeks between the end of CRT and surgery, in rectal cancer.

3 similar, although C was slightly higher for rectal cancer.

4 Most symptoms were more present in rectal cancer.

5 chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer.

6 e of pathological complete response (pCR) in rectal cancer.

7 apy in patients with resectable stage II-III rectal cancer.

8 e to conventional low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

9 motherapy with observation for patients with rectal cancer.

10 bdominal resection for patients with stage I rectal cancer.

11 r robotic compared to LLAR in the setting of rectal cancer.

12 counseling patients anticipating surgery for rectal cancer.

13 val after laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer.

14 rsus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

15 local excision for patients with stage T2N0 rectal cancer.

16 and surgery for patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer.

17 after laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer.

18 s of Excellence program for US patients with rectal cancer.

19 mains around 30% to 50% in patients with low rectal cancer.

20 aroscopic sphincter-saving resection for low rectal cancer.

21 paradigm shift, with only 12% ES rate in low rectal cancer.

22 important predictive factor in patients with rectal cancer.

23 oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

24 c safety of laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer.

25 important step for personalized treatment of rectal cancer.

26 the conventional abdominal dissection in low rectal cancer.

27 al benefit in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

28 recurrence and a major factor in survival in rectal cancer.

29 ns and overall survival (OS) for early-stage rectal cancer.

30 rs better local control in the management of rectal cancer.

31 R0 margins and survival rates for recurrent rectal cancer.

32 cer was associated with an increased risk of rectal cancer.

33 ajor complications after rectal excision for rectal cancer.

34 l cancer, but inferior for T1-2 colon and T2 rectal cancer.

35 underwent sacrectomy, with 49 for recurrent rectal cancer.

36 tcomes of patients with colon cancer but not rectal cancer.

37 ectal excision is the mainstay treatment for rectal cancer.

38 and radiation therapy (CRT) in patients with rectal cancer.

39 (CRT) response is a predictor of survival in rectal cancer.

40 prove chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.

41 tomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer.

42 pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

43 pic (LRR) vs open (ORR) rectal resection for rectal cancer.

44 is needed in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

45 arly postoperative outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.

46 strate intratumoral genetic heterogeneity in rectal cancer.

47 maging texture features derived from primary rectal cancer.

48 of germline alterations in the MMR genes in rectal cancer.

49 fter eAPR with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer.

50 is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer.

51 ged as a management option for patients with rectal cancer.

52 social functions were significantly worse in rectal cancer.

53 during preoperative CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer.

54 ive resection margins after resection of low rectal cancers.

55 ls metabolic differences between colonic and rectal cancers.

56 tumoral heterogeneity is present among naive rectal cancers.

57 inely tested, but little is known about dMMR rectal cancers.

58 is the optimal surgical technique for distal rectal cancers?

59 it on 2 consecutive days in 14 patients with rectal cancer (11 men [mean age, 61.7 years], three wome

60 A total of 189 patients presented a low rectal cancer; 162 (86%) underwent RCT; total mesorectal

61 ing total colectomy developed a metachronous rectal cancer (18.2%).

62 nal bacteria, was positively associated with rectal cancer [3.38 (1.25-9.16); P trend = 0.02] and wit

63 53.8% [53.3-54.4] vs 60.4% [60.0-60.9]), and rectal cancer (52.1% [51.6-52.6] vs 57.6% [57.1-58.1]).

64 rapy (RT) is a mainstay in the management of rectal cancer, a tumor characterized by desmoplastic str

65 emoradiotherapy guidelines for patients with rectal cancer across geographic regions and institution

66 ing nonoperative management in patients with rectal cancer after chemoradiation is the inability to i

67 lection for lung recurrence in patients with rectal cancer after multidisciplinary treatment.

68 Subgroup analysis of T1 and T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy and local excisi

69 loratory data suggest local excision of T1-2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy may be safe.

70 lts of diagnostic performances for restaging rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment, but significa

71 e of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with rectal cancer after preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and

72 patients of the remainder (10.6%) developed rectal cancer after primary colon resection.

73 salvage surgery on survival in patients with rectal cancer after receiving multidisciplinary treatmen

74 nce rate was also observed for patients with rectal cancer aged 35 to 49 years.

75 k to CRC in the Koreans, especially risk for rectal cancer alone.

76 -0.05-0.37) for CRC and 0.41 (0.10-0.68) for rectal cancer alone.

77 s were analyzed comprising 634 patients with rectal cancer and 86 with benign pathology.

78 the Amsterdam criteria carry a high risk of rectal cancer and of metachronous CRC.

79 ppears as an alternative in the treatment of rectal cancer and other rectal disease.

80 for other tumours, such as locally recurrent rectal cancer and pancreatic cancer.

81 of pelvic exenteration for primary advanced rectal cancer and RRC.

82 l outcome after laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer and seems as a safe option to preserve the

83 tic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer, and the proportion of leakages that devel

84 tations detected in different fragments from rectal cancers are frequently unique to a single fragmen

85 detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography a

86 patients with stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer at 17 institutions in the USA and Canada.

87 Eighteen patients (23.7%) had rectal cancer at first presentation, 5 patients of the r

88 ive new surgical option in patients with low rectal cancer because laparotomy is not necessary due to

89 Those with rectal cancers benefited most from follow-up.ISRCTN 4145

90 going open curative resection of stage I-III rectal cancer between 1996 and 2008 were assessed.

91 on or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between April 2009 and April 2016 via a ro

92 l in the UK and Ireland was intermediate for rectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin mela

93 EMVI is a prognostic factor in rectal cancer but whether this remains so after CRT preo

94 institutions and 11 subjects diagnosed with rectal cancer but with no clinical or MRI indications of

95 o major surgery for carcinoma in situ and T1 rectal cancer, but inferior for T1-2 colon and T2 rectal

96 comes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and r

97 precision in estimating the risk of colon or rectal cancer by reducing the impact of misclassificatio

98 and radiation therapy (CRT) in patients with rectal cancer by using histogram analysis derived from w

99 In this nationwide study, resection of low rectal cancers by ELAPE did not improve short-term oncol

100 Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer can be performed with good short and mediu

101 llance should be advised when a high risk of rectal cancer can be predicted.

102 as independent risk factors, and advances in rectal cancer care are necessary to approach the outcome

103 actually represent increasing disparities in rectal cancer care rather than innovation.

104 a mail survey with 8 questions pertaining to rectal cancer care was created, modified for content val

105 However, because of large evolvement in rectal cancer care, outcomes after APE may have improved

106 total of 1261 incident colon cancer and 747 rectal cancer cases were identified.

107 A total of 1019 incident colon and rectal cancer cases with available F nucleatum data were

108 Targeting p57Kip2 in primary rectal cancer cells and tumor models resulted in increas

109 ests the need for specialized designation of rectal cancer centers to support ongoing regionalization

110 ests the need for specialized designation of rectal cancer centers to support ongoing regionalization

111 motherapy and radiation for locally advanced rectal cancer complete postoperative adjuvant systemic c

112 open surgery (n=142) for upper, mid, and low rectal cancer conducted at the Prince of Wales Hospital,

113 OM demonstrates promise for the treatment of rectal cancer; currently, however, the most appropriate

114 e, cetuximab, and ramucirumab for metastatic rectal cancer (diagnosed in November 2013 and treated th

115 Local excision of T1 rectal cancer did not affect CSS (HR = 1.16, P = 0.236),

116 of a pelvic drain after rectal excision for rectal cancer did not confer any benefit to the patient.

117 e laparoscopic surgery for colonic and upper rectal cancer, enrolled from October 2008 to October 201

118 However, rectal cancer evaluation with MR imaging remains a chall

119 colon (FFT: n = 52 and LFT: n = 54) and 157 rectal cancer (FFT: n = 78 and LFT: n = 79).

120 t of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with rectal cancer following radiotherapy or chemoradiation r

121 the National Cancer Data Base diagnosed with rectal cancer from 1998 to 2010 were initially included.

122 or all patients diagnosed as having colon or rectal cancer from January 1, 1975, through December 31,

123 57 patients diagnosed with stage IV colon or rectal cancer from January 1, 1988, through December 31,

124 ns will continue to advance the treatment of rectal cancer, further emphasizing the need for a multid

125 95% CI: 0.50, 0.96; P for trend = 0.06), and rectal cancer (>90 vs. </=30 minutes/day, HR = 0.59, 95%

126 tudy has shown poor compliance with national rectal cancer guidelines, but whether this finding is re

127 dMMR rectal cancer had excellent prognosis and pathologic res

128 cess of neoadjuvant CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer has changed an already complex management

129 lization of laparoscopic and robotic LAR for rectal cancer has steadily increased.

130 The management of care for rectal cancer has undergone many changes and improvement

131 pearances of a vaginal metastasis from colon-rectal cancer have not been extensively investigated.

132 mprovements in the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer have occurred over the past 30 years.

133 comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer have reported long-term survival data.

134 impacts of a minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer have yet to be defined.

135 f localized, regional, and distant colon and rectal cancers have increased.

136 lines (colon cancer: DLD-1, HCT116 and HT29; rectal cancer: HT55, SW837 and VACO4S) maintained in hyp

137 pared LRR with ORR for histologically proven rectal cancer in adult patients and reported pathologic

138 showed significant association with CRC and rectal cancer in Koreans, but not with colon cancer alon

139 rm accurate localization and segmentation of rectal cancer in MR imaging in the majority of patients.

140 s after rectal resection and anastomosis for rectal cancer in selected patients without clinical or r

141 A total of 801 patients operated for rectal cancer in Sweden, Spain, Germany, and Denmark com

142 All patients with rectal cancer in the National Cancer Data Base undergoin

143 ectional study of low anterior resection for rectal cancer in the Netherlands in 2011, with almost ro

144 sive (MIS) compared with open techniques for rectal cancer in the United States.

145 ltidisciplinary approach to the patient with rectal cancer includes many health care professionals.

146 Rectal cancer is a common and serious disease in the Wes

147 The basis of the current treatment of rectal cancer is a radical total mesorectal excision of

148 Minimally invasive LAR for rectal cancer is associated with similar overall surviva

149 Laparoscopic sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer is challenging because of the high risk of

150 he role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial.

151 ut the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients w

152 tion of LE for treatment of low-risk stage I rectal cancer is increasing.

153 ry and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is lacking.

154 Local recurrence of rectal cancer is more common after abdominoperineal exci

155 The standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer is preoperative, long course (5-fluorourac

156 ce to evidence-based treatment guidelines in rectal cancer is suboptimal in the United States, with s

157 ive radiation therapy (RT) for patients with rectal cancer is unknown.

158 Standard of care treatment for most stage I rectal cancers is total mesorectal excision (TME).

159 ecurrence rates in clinical stages II to III rectal cancer, it delays administration of optimal chemo

160 patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

161 Despite advances in the management of rectal cancer, local recurrence still occurs.

162 had confirmed histopathological diagnosis of rectal cancer located within 15 cm from the anal verge,

163 Between 2008 and 2012, 100 patients with low rectal cancer (< 6 cm from the anal verge) suitable for

164 A substantial proportion of patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait avoided major su

165 nging paradigms and current controversies in rectal cancer management.

166 Several clinical management decisions in rectal cancer may be influenced by pretreatment biopsy i

167 Elderly patients with locally advanced rectal cancers may tolerate preoperative chemoradiation

168 ere followed for the occurrence of colon and rectal cancer (median period: 6.8 y).

169 An integrated analysis of rectal cancer miRs may yield biomarkers of radioresistan

170 Rectal cancer mortality ASRs rose annually by 2.4% (95%

171 Increases in late-stage disease and rectal cancer mortality demonstrate an urgent need for c

172 it is possible that the observed increase in rectal cancer mortality may be partly an artefact of cau

173 In the TME trial, patients with rectal cancer (n = 1,530) were randomly allocated to pre

174 ectomy at 11 and 16 years, respectively, for rectal cancer; neither has developed recurrent disease.

175 cted patients with clinical stages II to III rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and selective ra

176 was defined as secondary proctectomy and/or rectal cancer occurrence.

177 methods in 62 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer on pre- and post-CRT images.

178 y evaluate the impact of robotic surgery for rectal cancer on sexual and urinary functions in male an

179 r automatic localization and segmentation of rectal cancers on multiparametric MR imaging.

180 Low rectal cancer oncological outcomes remain a global chall

181 Clinical Complete Response in Patients with Rectal Cancer (OnCoRe) was a propensity-score matched co

182 ain surgeon volume-associated differences in rectal cancer outcomes.

183 objective was to examine the use of NOM for rectal cancer over time, as well as the patient- and fac

184 and in unmatched (interpatient) samples from rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiothera

185 Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent procte

186 mpared short-term oncologic outcomes between rectal cancer patients undergoing either RLAR or LLAR.

187 Rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominop

188 In rectal cancer patients, evidence suggests that prolonged

189 Forty-five rectal cancer patients, partial responders (PR = 18), no

190 urrence and poor morbidity and mortality for rectal cancer patients.

191 eliable tools for measuring LARS in European rectal cancer patients.

192 ary ileostomy could reduce complications for rectal cancer patients.

193 tal mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer, patients who experience local or systemic

194 udy was to evaluate the utility of reimaging rectal cancer post-CRT (chemoradiotherapy) with magnetic

195 For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of

196 n approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value.

197 SRCC was found in 0.9% (n = 622) rectal cancer (RC) patients in our study.

198 nosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around

199 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 2.24) but not rectal cancer (relative risk = 1.07, 95% confidence inte

200 This follow-up study of 374 patients with rectal cancer reports the relationship between preoperat

201 of unselected consecutive patients with low rectal cancer requiring proctectomy and coloanal anastom

202 een elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resection in a daily practice multicenter

203 at worse oncological outcomes after curative rectal cancer resection in patients receiving perioperat

204 Margin positivity after rectal cancer resection is associated with poorer outcom

205 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by either high (upper

206 tic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection.

207 transfusions in patients undergoing curative rectal cancer resection.

208 pshot research project, data from registered rectal cancer resections in the Dutch Surgical Colorecta

209 nd 0.71 (0.65-0.77) and 0.74 (0.68-0.79) for rectal cancer, respectively.

210 A quarter of rectal cancer respondents (25.1%) reported difficulties

211 Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for stage II/III rectal cancer results in up to 49% of patients with a cl

212 line tended to be positively associated with rectal cancer risk [OR (95% confidence interval, CI)(hig

213 ght gain or loss was not related to colon or rectal cancer risk in men or women.

214 intake was also not associated with colon or rectal cancer risk.

215 I and weight change and subsequent colon and rectal cancer risk.

216 e fractions of late stage (III/IV) colon and rectal cancers rose significantly over time.

217 ited Kingdom, patients with locally advanced rectal cancer routinely receive neoadjuvant chemoradioth

218 advanced primary (LAP) cancer and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC).

219 er levels of lactate (P < 0.005) relative to rectal cancer samples (n = 39).

220 ts effective prediction models for colon and rectal cancer should be developed separately.

221 ancer susceptibility, but a possible role in rectal cancer should be further evaluated in larger coho

222 Identification of a dMMR rectal cancer should trigger germline testing, followed

223 y (adjusted OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.83-1.25) or rectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.10; 95

224 a median follow-up of 6.8 years, the 5-year rectal cancer-specific survival was 100% for stage I and

225 Overall and rectal cancer-specific survival were calculated by the K

226 All consecutive patients with middle or low rectal cancer submitted to surgery were included into a

227 For rectal cancer surgery (N=2328), all laparoscopic subgrou

228 discharge VTE chemoprophylaxis if undergoing rectal cancer surgery [incidence rate ratio (IRR), 1.83;

229 Hospital RAMP outlier status is a rectal cancer surgery composite metric that reliably cap

230 ial resection margin (CRM) involvement after rectal cancer surgery in comparison with low anterior re

231 Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited

232 Recent evolutions in rectal cancer surgery led to transanal dissection of the

233 rformance-based outliers and may represent a rectal cancer surgery quality metric.

234 examined for different outcome variables in rectal cancer surgery.

235 stionnaire measuring bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery.

236 predictor anymore for CRM involvement after rectal cancer surgery.

237 dysfunctions are recognized complications of rectal cancer surgery.

238 olvement, adjusted for other confounders, in rectal cancer surgery.

239 analysis support minimal volume standards in rectal cancer surgery.

240 justification of minimal volume standards in rectal cancer surgery.

241 d the relationship between tumor and the low rectal cancer surgical resection plane (mrLRP).

242 was to explore specific microRNAs (miRs) in rectal cancer that would predict response to radiation a

243 use of LE is also increasing for higher-risk rectal cancers that do not meet guideline criteria for L

244 arantee the quality of surgical treatment of rectal cancer, the Association of Surgeons of the Nether

245 Considering the risk of rectal cancer, the low success rate of long-term rectal

246 Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compare

247 ts (70 years or older) with locally advanced rectal cancers to image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT).

248 enters, a sizeable minority of patients with rectal cancer treated with curative-intent neoadjuvant c

249 patients with clinically staged T2N0 distal rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

250 tive adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation.

251 outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment, in support of ongoing clinical

252 outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment, in support of ongoing clinical

253 tatus have been implicated in disparities of rectal cancer treatment.

254 From 2005 to 2013, all patients with low rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal e

255 as used selecting 5017 patients with primary rectal cancer undergoing surgery in 2010 to 2011.

256 Twenty-seven patients with rectal cancer underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT before, 2 wk af

257 Between 2000 and 2010, 220 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic rectal excision wit

258 Between 1992 and 2012, 62 patients with dMMR rectal cancers underwent multimodality therapy.

259 e and prognostic capability in patients with rectal cancer using histopathology as the gold standard.

260 A first-degree family history of rectal cancer was associated with an increased risk of r

261 Laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer was associated with rates of locoregional

262 Progress in MRI for rectal cancer was most notable in terms of assessment of

263 fter eAPR with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer was not improved when using a biological m

264 eceived neoadjuvant CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer were acquired.

265 ologic assessment, and medical treatments of rectal cancer were considered.

266 ember 2010, 2,073 patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were enrolled in the database.

267 The rates of metachronous CRC and of rectal cancer were evaluated, together with their associ

268 lon cancer or for BMI and weight changes and rectal cancer were found.

269 ents who underwent resection for stage I-III rectal cancer were identified from the 2010-2011 Nationa

270 had undergone surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer were identified.

271 d DWI) of 140 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were included in our analysis, equally div

272 articularly distal colon cancer; results for rectal cancer were mixed.

273 A total of 121 patients with rectal cancer were prospectively enrolled.

274 ients undergoing fully robotic resection for rectal cancer were prospectively included in the study.

275 ts operated on for clinical stage II and III rectal cancer were selected from the 2006-2011 National

276 However, patients with rectal cancer were specifically excluded from these land

277 R over time in either sex, or when colon and rectal cancers were considered separately; however the n

278 orectal, left-side colon, sigmoid colon, and rectal cancers were not associated with gallstone diseas

279 Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve a pathological complete respon

280 We prospectively studied 12 patients with rectal cancer who completed standardized neoadjuvant che

281 this retrospective study of 31 patients with rectal cancer who underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imag

282 rospective data from patients with recurrent rectal cancer who underwent pelvic exenteration involvin

283 of 13 elderly patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative chemoradiation

284 sed to evaluate how frequently patients with rectal cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant chemothe

285 atients with locally advanced (cT3-4 or cN+) rectal cancer who were treated with preoperative chemora

286 Patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer who were undergoing preoperative RT (45 Gy

287 Patients with rectal cancer, who were treated by the survey respondent

288 , in 2030, the incidence rates for colon and rectal cancers will increase by 90.0% and 124.2%, respec

289 525489 was associated with increased risk of rectal cancer with a (Ptrend of = 0.0071).

290 Management of rectal cancer with colorectal anastomosis and coloanal a

291 ed without benchmarking the outcomes of dMMR rectal cancer with current therapy.

292 ed that show the ability to accurately stage rectal cancer with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

293 individuals underwent radical resection for rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant therapy.

294 nd 1 year after the primary treatment of her rectal cancer with preoperative radiotherapy and low ant

295 interaction of location of tumor (colon vs. rectal cancer) with DM on OS (P = 0.009) and DFS (P = 0.

296 Tumors were mostly midrectal to lower rectal cancer, with a median distance from the anal verg

297 Patient 3 had metastatic rectal cancer, with bilateral uveitis and bilateral subf

298 ative CRT increases the rate of pCR by 6% in rectal cancer, with similar outcomes and complication ra

299 f 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were random

300 observational cohort study of patients with rectal cancer within the National Cancer Data Base (2003