ライフサイエンスコーパス: tumor patient

1 mental to the long-term health of the kidney tumor patient.

2 but cannot prove causality in the individual tumor patient.

3 xon 5 of wt1 in a sporadic unilateral Wilms' tumor patient.

4 mapping and successfully applied it to brain tumor patients.

5 tested, including Mer- specimens from brain tumor patients.

6 ated with cell proliferation and activity in tumor patients.

7 risk estimations for subpopulations of brain tumor patients.

8 strated utility in the current care of brain tumor patients.

9 rognostic biomarkers for clinical outcome in tumor patients.

10 clinical decision making in pediatric brain tumor patients.

11 associated with systemic toxicities in brain tumor patients.

12 ls is successfully applied in neuroendocrine tumor patients.

13 gnostic biomarker for OS and DFS in Klatskin tumor patients.

14 etwork-based view of these deficits in brain tumor patients.

15 rapeutic potential in GH-producing pituitary tumor patients.

16 intervention has rapidly improved for brain tumor patients.

17 no acid transport in the management of brain tumor patients.

18 development and determine survival in brain tumor patients.

19 it to be a germline genetic event in thyroid tumor patients.

20 observed in nontransplanted, immunized solid-tumor patients.

21 nced carcinoid and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients.

22 imited efficacy in metastatic neuroendocrine tumor patients.

23 in the germ line of hyperparathyroidism-jaw tumor patients.

24 nd quality of life (QOL) in irradiated brain tumor patients.

25 ession contributes to the prognosis of Wilms tumor patients.

26 This meta-analysis included 4592 tumor patients.

27 higher relapse and mortality rates in Wilms tumor patients.

28 rove the still dismal survival rate of Ewing tumor patients.

29 , and 15 of a 28-day cycle in advanced solid tumor patients.

30 r for predicting treatment response in brain tumor patients.

31 intravenous infusion of decitabine in solid tumor patients.

32 art of the multimodality management of brain tumor patients.

33 erate antigen-specific cytotoxicity in brain tumor patients.

34 n a challenging task in the therapy of brain tumor patients.

35 y into the tumor resection cavities of brain tumor patients.

36 charge outcome and shorter survival of brain tumor patients.

37 r potential power in the evaluation of brain tumor patients.

38 tant AR (mtAR T877A), found in many prostate tumor patients.

39 bs may improve the current therapy for brain tumor patients.

40 rom recurrent tumors on T1-w MRI in 42 brain tumor patients, (2) different molecular sub-types of bre

41 In solid tumor patients admitted between 2009 and 2013, hospital

42 was 7.7 months in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients and 10.2 months in carcinoid patients.

43 dmission between 1997 and 2013; 39,734 solid tumor patients and 6,652 patients with a hematological m

44 rate was 81.1% in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients and 83.4% in carcinoid patients.

45 apamycin (mTOR) inhibition in advanced solid tumor patients and in murine xenograft models.

46 bjective responses were noted in three Wilms tumor patients and one each of medulloblastoma and hepat

47 for treating venous thromboembolism in brain tumor patients and that the risk of hemorrhage with anti

48 We report changes in diagnosis for all brain tumor patients and the following relative differences va

49 of [1,2-(13)C]acetate was validated in brain tumor patients and was correlated with expression of ace

50 dependent of age in the lymphocytes of brain tumor patients and was present in lymphocytes from six o

51 is mainly affected by a complex interplay of tumor, patient, and treatment-related factors.

52 estimated with multivariable adjustment for tumor-, patient-, and facility-level characteristics.

53 icate that a significant proportion of solid tumor patients are eligible for immuno-targeted combinat

54 Cognitive deficits in brain tumor patients are reflected in whole-brain network dist

55 and promising preclinical experiments, brain tumor patients are still met with limited treatment opti

56 on at large is not as profoundly impaired in tumor patients as the correct polarization, the survival

57 C was administered every 14 days to 48 solid-tumor patients at doses of 5 to 59 microg/m2/h without g

58 xpressed Ag that is successfully targeted in tumor patients by mAbs or tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

59 A pilot study indicated that sera from brain tumor patients can be distinguished from controls based

60 We also identified a bladder tumor patient carrying a germ-line mutation but with no

61 Analysis of human primary CRC tumor patient databases showed a positive correlation be

62 ports the clinical use of DWI for pancreatic tumor patients for early assessment of drug efficacy.

63 e antineoplastic effects observed by some ES tumor patients from IGF-1R targeted therapies, in contra

64 dent factor for overall survival in Klatskin tumor patients (hazard ratio: 2.777; 95% confidence inte

65 and patient function is practical for brain tumor patients in clinical trials and can provide inform

66 The most common medical problems in brain tumor patients involve the management of seizures, perit

67 evation in incidence of Mer- status in brain tumor patients is highly significant (chi2 = 24; p < or

68 Antiepileptic treatment of brain tumor patients mainly depends on the individual physicia

69 red by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, patients on the standard-dose arm could reregist

70 , whereas grossly normal kidney tissues from tumor patients or renal cell carcinomas were CXCR2 negat

71 The incidence of bleeding is low among solid tumor patients overall but exceeds 20% in some subgroups

72 s as a whole can predict survival in stage I tumor patients (P = 0.01).

73 ctivity in this heavily pretreated germ cell tumor patient population.

74 prospectively enrolled pediatric type brain tumor patients, preserving tumor cytology and histoarchi

75 itors of MMPs, clinical trials of late-stage tumor patients show no indication that this approach wil

76 Anatomic location and stage of the tumor, patient sociodemographic characteristics, prior m

77 n at times prove causality in the individual tumor patient [such as the detection of high-risk human

78 Brain tumor patients suffer from cognitive deficits, regardles

79 alone has been insufficient to extend brain tumor patient survival.

80 For incidental tumors, patient survival was negatively influenced by mu

81 In the testing group (brain tumor patients), the sensitivity of the language mapping

82 in the urine of normal and low-grade bladder tumor patients, the urine of high-grade bladder cancer p

83 ls.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT By comparing brain tumor patients to healthy children, we establish that ch

84 patients treated with BCT for larger breast tumors, patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy

85 response rate (ORR) in pancreatic endocrine tumor patients was 16.7% (11 of 66 patients), and 68% (4

86 The 5 years DSS for localized tumor patients was 35% for NF-1 patients and 50% for spo

87 A technique described in brain tumor patients was adapted to incorporate a correction f

88 er- status in normal brain tissue from brain tumor patients was age-dependent, increasing from 21% in

89 abnormal microvasculature in malignant brain tumor patients, we have undertaken a cell-specific trans

90 f any abnormal hemodynamic profile for brain tumor patients, we propose our findings to be a close ap

91 Twenty brain tumor patients were examined by standard and diffusion M

92 ectomy, and 4.0% (458/2736) had unresectable tumors.Patients were less likely to undergo surgery if t

93 ose escalation of TPT above the MTD in solid-tumor patients, whereas concurrent therapy with G-CSF an

94 ances in network topology are found in brain tumor patients, which relate to their cognitive problems

95 There is increasing evidence that brain tumor patients who have not had a seizure do not benefit

96 ulation of patients with superficial bladder tumors, patients who have p53 nuclear overexpression in

97 was present in lymphocytes from six of nine tumor patients whose normal brain specimen was Mer-.

98 Klatskin tumor patients with a history of tumor recurrence had si

99 Solid-tumor patients with a Karnofsky performance status great

100 Primary tumor patients with a subsequent brain relapse showed al

101 mples were taken during the ERC procedure in tumor patients with biliary obstruction.

102 mmend palliative chemotherapy only for solid tumor patients with good performance status.

103 riate survival analysis showed that Klatskin tumor patients with high MACC1 had a significantly short

104 Outcome in tumor patients with malignant bile obstruction is associ

105 expression is elevated in high-grade primary tumor patients with papillary serous tumors of the ovary

106 se levels as a method, for identifying brain tumor patients with the best likelihood of response to B

107 patients, female patients (for sex-specific tumors), patients with private health insurance, and pat

108 Compared with patients with PPARG-negative tumors, patients with PPARG-positive tumors had signific

109 In tumor patients without preoperative neurological deficit