ライフサイエンスコーパス: watchful waiting

1 iate removal while others are proponents of "watchful waiting".

2 iotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and watchful waiting).

3 y, and patient preferences for time spent in watchful waiting.

4 eatment of DF, whereas 54% were managed with watchful waiting.

5 to early adenotonsillectomy or a strategy of watchful waiting.

6 only interval repeat biopsies to monitor by watchful waiting.

7 reatment at a center that favored biopsy and watchful waiting.

8 en treated at the center favoring biopsy and watchful waiting.

9 hat not all patients are good candidates for watchful waiting.

10 nagement programme are already being used in watchful waiting.

11 atment extremes of whole-gland treatment and watchful waiting.

12 and thus, who would be a good candidate for watchful waiting.

13 % assigned to receive repair crossed over to watchful waiting.

14 who underwent surgery, radiation therapy, or watchful waiting.

15 significance have resulted in a new form of watchful waiting.

16 T, transthoracic needle biopsy, surgery, and watchful waiting.

17 American centers and enrolling 720 men (364 watchful waiting, 356 surgical repair) followed up for 2

18 T monotherapy, local treatment plus ADT, and watchful waiting/active surveillance (WW/AS).

19 4.5-10.9) at the center favoring biopsy and watchful waiting and 7.1 years (interquartile range, 4.2

20 ents (66 from the center favoring biopsy and watchful waiting and 87 from the center favoring early r

21 2%) and 74% (95% CI, 64%-84%) for biopsy and watchful waiting and early resection, respectively.

22 receive chemotherapy, 12 patients opted for watchful waiting and four patients received radiation th

23 Costs are generally lowest with traditional watchful waiting and highest with radiation therapy.

24 nts served by the center favoring biopsy and watchful waiting and in 12 (14%) patients served by the

25 r chemotherapy or radiotherapy compared with watchful waiting and the effect of this strategy on qual

26 us the relation between treatment of BPH (or watchful waiting) and sexual dysfunction is usually coin

27 of prostatectomy or radiation therapy versus watchful waiting, and large observational studies of per

28 Currently, guidelines recommend a watchful waiting approach to HPT for the first 12 months

29 Compared with a watchful waiting approach, the incremental cost-effectiv

30 a PSA value <4 ng/dL and has suggested that 'watchful waiting' approaches may not be appropriate for

31 Watchful waiting as traditionally practiced involves the

32 e outcomes of affected patients managed with watchful waiting, as well as variables predictive of pro

33 ate surgery (ventilation-tube insertion) and watchful waiting before surgery.

34 ive treatments or placebo (which represented watchful waiting) but the placebo group had significantl

35 terizing 281 prostate cancers from a Swedish watchful-waiting cohort.

36 e patients were randomized into conservative watchful waiting (controls) or LCC group.

37 Twenty-three percent of patients assigned to watchful waiting crossed over to receive surgical repair

38 de genetic risk communication, concepts like watchful waiting, cumulative radiation risk, late effect

39 of alternative treatment strategies, such as watchful waiting, due to the inherent potential biases i

40 surgery) versus therapeutic node dissection (watchful waiting followed by neck dissection for nodal r

41 ing immediate antimicrobial treatment versus watchful waiting for children younger than 2 years of ag

42 herapy) for drug-resistant major depression, watchful waiting for inguinal hernias, and hemodialyzer

43 rs, which was significantly more than in the watchful waiting group (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.56; p<0.0

44 , with 46% (95% CI 39-53) of patients in the watchful waiting group not needing treatment at 3 years

45 Compared with the watchful waiting group, patients in the maintenance ritu

46 improvements in their QoL compared with the watchful waiting group.

47 e early-adenotonsillectomy group than in the watchful-waiting group (79% vs. 46%).

48 surgery group and 247 of the 348 men in the watchful-waiting group died.

49 after randomisation, 85% of children in the watchful-waiting group had received surgery and groups d

50 rge proportion of long-term survivors in the watchful-waiting group have not required any palliative

51 The watchful-waiting group was delayed on these two measures

52 ension and expressive language skills in the watchful-waiting group were 3.24 months behind those in

53 eaths, 63 in the surgery group and 99 in the watchful-waiting group were due to prostate cancer; the

54 e early-adenotonsillectomy group than in the watchful-waiting group.

55 enotonsillectomy group and 5.1+/-13.4 in the watchful-waiting group; P=0.16).

56 tic inguinal hernia who are likely to "fail" watchful waiting hernia management.

57 waiting in the American College of Surgeons Watchful Waiting Hernia Trial constituted the study popu

58 resection in 52%, medical therapy in 4%, and watchful waiting in 43%.

59 value of QRS duration and morphology during watchful waiting in asymptomatic patients with aortic st

60 An initial policy of watchful waiting in patients with asymptomatic, advanced

61 The 336 patients randomized to watchful waiting in the American College of Surgeons Wat

62 having had low risk exposures and managed by watchful waiting in the community.

63 Neither group favored watchful waiting in their treatment management except fo

64 Watchful waiting is a well known approach to the managem

65 Watchful waiting is an acceptable option for men with mi

66 Randomized trials have suggested that watchful waiting management of minimally symptomatic ing

67 ven the long natural history of such tumors, watchful waiting may represent an effective management s

68 urgery within 6 weeks (n=92), or 9 months of watchful waiting (n=90), after which bilateral tube inse

69 statectomy (19.1% [95% CI, 18.7%-19.5%]) and watchful waiting or active surveillance (9.6% [95% CI, 9

70 ociated with aggressive treatment and use of watchful waiting or active surveillance for men with pro

71 ients undergoing prostatectomy, 12% choosing watchful waiting or active surveillance, and only 3% und

72 Watchful waiting or active surveillance, radiation thera

73 Turkey, and Poland were randomly assigned to watchful waiting or maintenance rituximab.

74 improved outcomes with surgery compared with watchful waiting or radiation therapy.

75 signed 695 men with early prostate cancer to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy and followed t

76 One watchful-waiting patient (0.3%) experienced acute hernia

77 Self-reported pain in watchful-waiting patients crossing over improved after r

78 Watchful-waiting patients were followed up at 6 months a

79 ients who received repair as assigned and in watchful-waiting patients who crossed over.

80 tive surveillance for low-risk lesions and a watchful waiting policy with intervention when invasive

81 As compared with watchful waiting, presumptive treatment of all immigrant

82 iety of options available to them, including watchful waiting, prophylactic surgery, and chemoprevent

83 ted disease and reported that, compared with watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy reduced crude [c

84 and income, were associated with the use of watchful waiting rather than surgery or radiation in men

85 Watchful waiting remained least expensive in all analyse

86 ifferences between radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting (risk difference, 0% [95% CI, -19% to 1

87 ed by institution, grade, stage, and age, to watchful waiting, rituximab 375 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 wee

88 e different management strategies, including watchful waiting, screen and treat, and empirical treatm

89 As compared with watchful waiting, screening would cost $159,236 per DALY

90 after curative-intent prostatectomy and in a watchful waiting setting, possibly by facilitating micro

91 risk of surgery is greater than the risk of watchful waiting so that management includes patient edu

92 expectantly managed patients in the Swedish Watchful Waiting Study (n = 338).

93 ls did not describe all standard treatments (watchful waiting, surgery, radiation, and hormone therap

94 As compared with a strategy of watchful waiting, surgical treatment for the obstructive

95 siological, with sympathetic reassurance and watchful waiting the mainstays of treatment.

96 ized prostate cancers followed by expectant (watchful waiting) therapy with 15% (17/111) TMPRSS2:ERG

97 tate cancer-specific mortality compared with watchful waiting through 13 years of follow-up (relative

98 Watchful waiting (tincture of time) appeared to be centr

99 Clinical management of oral IEN varies from watchful waiting to complete resection, although complet

100 with stage IV indolent lymphoma ranges from watchful waiting to intensive chemotherapy and stem cell

101 ation nationwide in surgical, radiation, and watchful waiting treatment rates (P <.0015).

102 The watchful waiting trials demonstrated a small potential m

103 cular lymphoma have conventionally undergone watchful waiting until disease progression.

104 s have seen the publication of two trials of watchful waiting versus immediate treatment and updates

105 Definitive answers to the question of watchful waiting versus intervention await conclusion of

106 id in clinical management decisions (such as watchful waiting vs immediate intervention).

107 o-treat outcomes were similar at 2 years for watchful waiting vs surgical repair: pain limiting activ

108 n A + B was 13%, although progression during watchful waiting was 63%.

109 Watchful waiting was generally less effective than treat

110 s with BMD T scores of < -1.0, compared with watchful waiting, was greater than that of other well-ac

111 most patients underwent surgical therapy or watchful waiting while fewer had medical therapy.

112 scan" approach has been favored (biopsy and watchful waiting), while early resections have been advo

113 device patients varies widely, ranging from watchful waiting with intensified antithrombotic therapy

114 , early adenotonsillectomy, as compared with watchful waiting with supportive care, would result in i

115 and benefits of no preventive intervention (watchful waiting) with those of universal screening or p

116 y or 7 men with radiation therapy instead of watchful waiting would each result in 1 additional case

117 Active surveillance (AS) and watchful waiting (WW) have been proposed as management s

118 Watchful waiting (WW) is an acceptable strategy for mana

119 copic paraesophageal hernia repair (ELHR) or watchful waiting (WW).

120 or observation (active surveillance [AS] or watchful waiting [WW]).