ライフサイエンスコーパス: resectability

1 sidered with caution in terms of an improved resectability.

2 ered for neoadjuvant treatment regardless of resectability.

3 consensus classification and assess upfront resectability.

4 emotherapy and then stratified by subsequent resectability.

5 djuvant chemotherapy, and determine surgical resectability.

6 at allow for objectively defined criteria of resectability.

7 ment extent to define prognosis and surgical resectability.

8 K(1) (P < 0.021), irrespective of stage and resectability.

9 shed as the standard procedure for achieving resectability.

10 nverting patients with hepatic metastases to resectability.

11 uivalent for nodal staging and assessment of resectability.

12 eceptor scintigraphy since 1994 to determine resectability.

13 Patients were periodically reassessed for resectability.

14 creatic tumors and determination of surgical resectability.

15 edicted likelihood of distant metastases and resectability.

16 reatest determinant of long-term outcome was resectability.

17 vocal, LUS allowed accurate determination of resectability.

18 e following computed tomography criteria for resectability: 1) the absence of extrapancreatic disease

19 nts had 100% sensitivity in the detection of resectability, 72% specificity, 89% PPV, and 100% NPV.

20 chemotherapy is capable of increasing tumor resectability and changing patient outcomes.

21 al chemoradiation has been shown to increase resectability and decrease local recurrence in primary l

22 d not add to the estimation of loco-regional resectability and did not detect new distant metastases.

23 by preoperative chemoradiation can increase resectability and enable sphincter-preserving surgery in

24 y be the preferred sequence to improve tumor resectability and local-regional control with less risk

25 otherapy and as prognostic markers for tumor resectability and overall survival of patients with rese

26 t from preoperative functional MRI to assess resectability and reduce the possibility of functional d

27 By multivariate analysis (Cox regression), resectability and stage were independent predictors (P <

28 tumors probably accounted for the suboptimal resectability and survival results.

29 isease assessment, and correlate poorly with resectability and survival.

30 uld be staged, the proposed system predicted resectability and the likelihood of an R0 resection and

31 remained as significant predictors for tumor resectability, and EXO1 R354H, TREX1, and TP73 remained

32 sis remains the most critical determinant of resectability, and hence survival.

33 nse to preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumor resectability, and overall survival, respectively, in un

34 es were then analyzed for mode of diagnosis, resectability, and overall survival.

35 images separately for the presence of tumor, resectability, and vascular involvement.

36 Tumor response and resectability (both overall and after induction chemothe

37 at of CT for predicting abdominopelvic tumor resectability by correlating the results with surgical a

38 e (88%) and the possibility of conversion to resectability, despite disease progression on prior syst

39 Estimates of resectability for liver metastases were taken from UK-re

40 g retrospectively reviewed images for lesion resectability; four-, eight-, 16-, and 64-row CT scanner

41 PURPOSE To determine the conversion to resectability in patients with unresectable liver metast

42 cycles and portal vein occlusion to achieve resectability, is associated with poor short- and long-t

43 citumomab were concordant for abdominopelvic resectability, nonresectability, or absence of disease,

44 as patient prognosis, presence of symptoms, resectability, number and size of metastases, prior ther

45 The ALPPS approach allows achieving resectability of liver malignancies by a rapid and large

46 Potential improvement in survival and resectability of localized unresectable pancreatic cance

47 Most available imaging tests for assessing resectability of pancreatic cancer do not differ in effe

48 Detection, staging, and resectability of pancreatic cancer.

49 e the accuracy of imaging in determining the resectability of PDAC and to determine the surgical and

50 nd staging but similar for nodal staging and resectability of preoperatively suspected nonmetastatic

51 olerated, and effective in inducing surgical resectability of primary hepatic tumors in children.

52 using a TNM system and grouped according to resectability of the primary tumor.

53 Prognosis depends on patient's age, the resectability of the tumor, and the presence of metastas

54 also been used preoperatively to improve the resectability of tumors.

55 The authors examined the resectability, operative morbidity mortality, and surviv

56 s not performed for the purpose of assessing resectability or operative planning ("no-surgery" strate

57 ion for periampullary carcinoma have similar resectability, perioperative morbidity and mortality, an

58 ty-seven patients underwent tumor resection (resectability rate 71%), of which 26 initiated adjuvant

59 rcinoma of the ampulla of Vater has a higher resectability rate and a better prognosis.

60 re similar with respect to gender, race, and resectability rate but were significantly younger.

61 The resectability rate increased with a more distal location

62 In the present series with an overall resectability rate of 58.4%, SL identified 94.1% of the

63 The overall resectability rate was 93%.

64 Surgical findings, resectability rate, length of stay, and operative time w

65 The operative outcome, resectability rate, pathology, and long-term survival ra

66 smaller tumors but nevertheless had a lower resectability rate.

67 In the more recent era, resectability rates improved (69% vs. 17%; P = 0.0002),

68 gimens result in enhanced tumor response and resectability rates up to 30%, although the additional b

69 ter preservation, pathologic downstaging, or resectability rates were observed by 5-FU use.

70 ary endpoints included incidence, stage, and resectability rates.

71 This model identifies individual patient resectability, recommending optimal treatment strategies

72 alyzed; findings were similar to the overall resectability results.

73 The accuracy of arcitumomab for assessing resectability status is greater than that of CT, both in

74 propriate and consistent staging by means of resectability status, thus allowing for comparison of re

75 tic surgeons evaluated the reports to assess resectability, surgical planning, and ease of extracting

76 ET cannot replace CT in defining local tumor resectability, the application of 18FDG-PET in addition

77 hilar cholangiocarcinoma accurately predicts resectability, the likelihood of metastatic disease, and

78 The T-staging system correlates with resectability, the need for hepatectomy, and overall sur

79 y to convert an answer of "unsure" regarding resectability to a definitive answer (ie, resectable or

80 vements in imaging techniques, which permits resectability to be predicted more accurately, and in su

81 For tumor resectability, transverse images and curved planar refor

82 tatic and current preoperative evaluation of resectability using noninvasive imaging has limited succ

83 PV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for resectability were calculated for initial clinical inter

84 re confident regarding decisions about tumor resectability when they reviewed structured reports befo

85 However, the ability to assess resectability with simple diagnostic laparoscopy remains