ライフサイエンスコーパス: R0

1 R0 and pathologic complete response rates were 96% and 6

2 R0 and pCR rates were 82.5% and 6%, respectively.

3 R0 and SIG were calculated for each grid cell in Canada

4 R0 for the Pacific ZIKV epidemics is estimated between 1

5 R0 is the most important predictor of survival in patien

6 R0 rates were significantly higher in LAP cancer than in

7 R0 resection and complete mesocolic excision rate were 9

8 R0 resection of the pelvic recurrence is the most signif

9 R0 resection rate was 87% (21/24).

10 R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), wh

11 R0 resection rate was similar between the groups.

12 R0 resection rates were 77.3% (95% CI: 68.4-87.4) with S

13 R0 resection was achieved in 53 patients (94.6%).

14 R0 resection was achieved in 65% of patients, which tran

15 R0 resection was achieved in all patients undergoing sur

16 R0 resection was further divided into 3 groups: 0.1 to 0

17 R0 resection was reported in 60 (74%) of 81 patients.

18 R0, in contrast, increases monotonically and is the majo

19 R0, R1, and R2 resections were achieved in 78, 15, and 7

20 R0-resection rates decreased from 75% to 35% when changi

21 R0/R1 resection rates and associated survival vary signi

22 Disease extent: Image-negative (n = 30) (21 R0, 9 R1); Image-positive, n = 16.

23 Eight of 21 R0, exhibited positive NETest.

24 alyses identified histopathological grade 3, R0 resection, BRAF V600E mutation, and SRC mutation as i

25 We analysed 603 R0 resected patients to assess whether NLR, PLR and PC c

26 In total, there were 9 R0 and 10 R1 resections.

27 tic cancer surgery with the aim to achieve a R0 resection.

28 th a median of 27 resected lymph nodes and a R0-resection rate of 92%.

29 ion (FS) and re-resection results to achieve R0 status are associated with different long-term outcom

30 65%) patients with 94% of patients achieving R0 margins.

31 estimate 2-year survival (overall and after R0 or R1 resection), pattern of relapse, and toxicity in

32 Adjuvant RT should be considered after R0 resection of PDAC with node-positive disease.

33 andomly assigned (1:1) within 3 months after R0 or R1 resection of a localized BTC to receive either

34 atients with primarily resectable PDAC after R0 resection.

35 etrospective cohort study, adjuvant RT after R0 PDAC resection was associated with a survival benefit

36 sociation of adjuvant RT with survival after R0 resection of PDAC.

37 Median survival after R0 resection was similar in the extended resection and s

38 ant imatinib versus no further therapy after R0-R1 surgery patients with localized, high- or intermed

39 additional pancreas is removed to achieve an R0 margin.

40 = 0.0131) and were less likely to achieve an R0 resection margin [odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence int

41 1 nodes were dissected with 96% achieving an R0 resection.

42 ly with the EMR+ technique, all achieving an R0 resection.

43 However, it is not clear what constitutes an R0.

44 present in 18 (62%) patients, and all had an R0 resection (100%).

45 (y)pTNM stage II or III disease, who had an R0 resection, had a low anterior resection or an abdomin

46 esting continued unresectability, 92% had an R0 resection.

47 h more than one-fourth of patients having an R0 resection.

48 with pancreatic cancer who have undergone an R0 or R1 resection of their primary tumor?

49 n (n = 242) were compared with those with an R0 margin (n = 2573) in terms of short- and long-term ou

50 rty-seven patients were included, 33 with an R0 resection and 14 with positive margins (ie, R1) or no

51 asible in 28/30 (93,3%) of the cases with an R0 resection in 24/30 (80%) and a median procedure time

52 specific survival for those patients with an R0 resection.

53 In multivariate analysis, R0 resection (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.38-0.96; P = 0.01) and

54 tags (FSTs) were recovered from the analyzed R0 and R1 lines.

55 populations bounded by: pC, 0.0133-0.150 and R0, 1.09-2.16.

56 ing if 2-year survival 95% CI were > 45% and R0 and R1 survival estimates were >/= 65% and 45%, respe

57 respective resection rates (76% vs. 73%) and R0 resection rates (51% vs. 46%) did not differ between

58 py, surgical resection after FOLFIRINOX, and R0 resection.

59 onsistent with observed epidemic growth, and R0 was negatively correlated with long-term intervention

60 scopically involved margin (0 mm margin) and R0 as at least a 0.1 mm margin.

61 he total number of resected lymph nodes, and R0 resection rates was evaluated with multivariable logi

62 y, total number of resected lymph nodes, and R0 resection rates.

63 umab and provides advantage in PFS, ORR, and R0 resection rate at the price of a moderate increase in

64 f the outcomes survival, resection rate, and R0 resection rate, this appeared to be a representative

65 Estimating pathogen transmission rates and R0 from natural systems can be challenging.

66 y variant that increases resection rates and R0 resection rates in patients with primarily unresectab

67 Secondary endpoints are R0-resection rate, perceived burden and quality of life,

68 High-risk transmission areas (R0 > 6) are mainly found in West Africa and the Equatori

69 The R status was categorized as R0 (tumor-free margin >1 mm), R1 <=1 mm (tumor-free marg

70 Ex vivo surgery may provide a chance at R0 resection for conventionally unresectable tumors.

71 hat most pancreatic resections thought to be R0 resections are R1.

72 can be high, but eradication is easy because R0 is low.

73 50% higher on the day of exit from bedrest (R0) and 20% higher eight days later (R8).

74 Comparison between R0 and R1 resections showed a trend toward worse OS in R

75 Further, both R0 and simulations exhibited substantial spatial heterog

76 This result implies that bringing R0 to less than one is not enough for malaria eliminatio

77 sessed using a stochastic model to calculate R0 and the latter was assessed by deriving a suitability

78 have recently been developed for calculating R0 for diseases with seasonally varying transmission.

79 10%] vs 28 [22%], P = 0.03), with comparable R0-resection rates (4/7 [57%] vs 19/28 [68%], P = 0.67).

80 eriod, 954 patients (61%) underwent complete R0 resection with a 5-year survival of 47%.

81 cific survival for patients with a complete (R0) resection is 44%, which was achieved in 59% of patie

82 Even after potentially curative R0 resection, patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarci

83 Complete cytoreduction (R0) was achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST

84 Decreasing R0 while augmenting cross-sectional collection area with

85 A 1-2 mm margin is often used to define R0 but this is based on primary rectal cancer studies.

86 d a significant prognostic indicator despite R0.

87 survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), R0 resection rates, sphincter preservations, and wound/a

88 the longer interval group, and the OS, DFS, R0 resection rates, sphincter preservation, and complica

89 bility (R*) and potential to spread disease (R0 ) can produce three qualitatively disparate outcomes

90 and the reproduction number of the disease (R0).

91 Forster critical distance (R0) calculations determine that the nucleodyes make good

92 ing fluorophore spacing by Forster distance (R0).

93 We developed a climate-driven R0 mathematical model for the transmission risk of Zika

94 epsilon), and constitutive activity (epsilon(R0)).

95 parameters to specific values, e.g., epsilon(R0) = 0: no constitutive activity, gamma = 1: no amplifi

96 We estimated R0 at 2.4 (95% CI: 1.6-3.7).

97 ny pretreatment staging or adenoma, expected R0-resection, were randomized for standardized SCA, CJP,

98 e range in 3-year overall survival following R0 resection (40%-59%) reflects the diversity of tumor t

99 s 1.5%.The median overall survival following R0, R1, and R2 resection was 43, 21, and 10 months (P <

100 For R0 resections only, DFS in LAP cancer was 76% and 57% in

101 The definitions for R0 and R1 margin status after resection for pancreatic c

102 Three-year DFS for R0, R1, and R2 resections was 67%, 49%, and 0%, respecti

103 Three-year LRFS for R0 resection was 86% for LAP cancer and 84% for RRC (P =

104 from the time of surgery was 25.1 months for R0 (n = 82), 15.3 months for R1 <=1 mm (n = 99), and 16.

105 The 3-year overall-survival rate for R0 resection was 48% for endometrial malignancy, 40.6% f

106 le patients underwent conversion surgery for R0 resection, yet none harbored BRAF V600E or SRC mutati

107 nce imaging) showed a chance of margin-free (R0) resection of the primary tumor and at least a macros

108 inciple does exist, although it differs from R0 maximization.

109 stratified by resection margin (group I: FS-R0 --> PS-R0; group II: FS-R1 --> PS-R0; group III: FS-R

110 nal 51 patients (3.6%) had false-negative FS-R0 margins.

111 es of a 400-nucleotide region of the genome (R0) from nucleotides 889 to 1289 encompassing the 3' end

112 ere observed for AMA1, MSP2-3D7, MSP3, GLURP-R0, and GLURP-R2 but not for MSP119 and MSP2-FC27.

113 s and a parental clade 2.3.2.1a strain (H5N1-R0) infected and replicated in mice without prior adapta

114 patients included, 112 patients (20.0%) had R0 and 449 patients (80.0%) had R1 resections, including

115 2008, 32 (100%) of 32 study participants had R0 resections.

116 Ninety-one percent patients had R0 resection, and 57% had no recurrence to date with med

117 Forty-five of 111 patients had R0 resection; of these, 11 patients underwent conversion

118 .6%), 35 (16.7%), and 10 (4.8%) patients had R0, R1, and R2 margins, respectively.

119 The proportion of patients who had R0 resection of those who underwent resection ranged fro

120 The pooled proportion of patients who had R0 resection was 78.4% (95% CI 60.2-92.2, I(2) 64%).

121 High R0 resection rates were observed after a relatively shor

122 At others FET is lower, but a high R0 makes eradication impossible and control ineffective.

123 ars of 25% with a low R0 and 29% with a high R0.

124 uld rise from 6% to 16% from the low to high R0 settings, whereas asymptomatic infection prevalence w

125 sharply from 3% to 48% from the low to high R0 settings.

126 sic reproduction number were generally high (R0 > 10 in scenarios with high statistical support), whi

127 higher ORR (64.5% v 53.6%; P < .001), higher R0 resection rate (16.4% v 11.8%; P = .007), and higher

128 roup) mixing tended to give rise to a higher R0 and increased the likelihood that an epidemic would o

129 R0) and accurate estimates of VEP for higher R0 values.

130 new strains if and only if they have higher R0 values than the resident.

131 ria related to the presence of complete (ie, R0) resection were assessed by using logistic regression

132 US population and supports performing BCS if R0 resection can be achieved, with radiation if tumor si

133 k has significant community structure, or if R0 is high or unknown.

134 Postoperative radiation was planned if R0 resection was not achieved.

135 cisplatin plus fluorouracil does not improve R0 resection rate or survival but enhances postoperative

136 (95% CI, 53% to 74%); it was 67% and 60% in R0 and R1 patients, respectively.

137 h lower rates in PDAC <=20 mm (78.7%) and in R0/N0 tumors (70.6%).

138 The relative change in R0 due to an intervention is referred to as the effect s

139 an change dramatically with small changes in R0.

140 was the only independent predictor of DFS in R0/N0 tumors (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.2) and in PDAC <=20 m

141 DP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lym

142 led trial has found no difference neither in R0 resection rates nor in postoperative complications in

143 Macroscopic residues in R0-specimens of partial responders (tumor regression gra

144 etrimental to malaria control, by increasing R0 and increasing the likelihood of malaria persistence

145 Transmission indices (R0) are higher in all 3 countries than in 1976.

146 basic reproductive number of the infection (R0) for both FLAPS and randomized configurations, we inv

147 eters (i.e. mean duration of infectiousness, R0, and Reff) and can provide an accurate estimate of th

148 For strains with very large R0, we derive an expression for this local fitness funct

149 in children aged 0-4 years of 25% with a low R0 and 29% with a high R0.

150 For diseases with a low R0, the most connected individuals provide the earliest

151 r respiratory transmission, and limited (0 < R0 <= 1) human-to-human transmissibility.

152 Negative resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 79.9%.

153 Attainment of negative resection margins (R0) is the key to survival.

154 as the rate of tumor-free resection margins (R0); secondary end-points were postoperative complicatio

155 e does not differ significantly from matched R0 resections.

156 -grade tumour); intermediate (non-metastatic R0 or R1 >5 cm high-grade, or unresected tumour of any s

157 Risk groups were: low (non-metastatic R0 or R1 low-grade, or <=5 cm R1 high-grade tumour); int

158 p between the degree of within-group mixing, R0 and equilibrium HIV prevalence under different mixing

159 ally in "early stage disease" (PDAC <=20 mm, R0/N0 PDAC).

160 Median overall survival was 35 months (R0, 34 months; R1, 35 months).

161 toperative morbidity, in-hospital mortality, R0 resection rate, and prognostic factor identification.

162 ered undertreated, including 3 node-negative R0 microinvasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm

163 lassified by neck margin status as negative (R0) or microscopically positive (R1) on the basis of FS

164 cular reconstruction, 62 (85%) had negative (R0) margins, and 24 (33%) had a complete or major pathol

165 1%) patients with resection margin negative (R0 >1 mm) tumors, 25.4 (21.6-30.4) months for 146 (12.7%

166 Patients who underwent a margin-negative (R0) resection, and who had previously undergone patholog

167 noma (PDAC), especially for margin-negative (R0) resections.

168 , we determine the basic reproduction number R0 for the system, provide analytic results for the extr

169 yses show that the basic reproduction number R0, and the infectious human population are most sensiti

170 median within-host basic reproductive number R0 is 10.7, the rate of viral production is rapid (>25,0

171 n (measured by the basic reproductive number R0) and its individual-level severity.

172 rs associated with basic reproductive number R0, we extend the branching process model to infer trans

173 oss values of the basic reproduction number (R0) and accurate estimates of VEP for higher R0 values.

174 ons (FET) and the basic reproduction number (R0) and consequently causes UT8T to vary from easily eli

175 Typically, if the basic reproduction number (R0) for malaria is greater than unity, the disease will

176 The reproduction number (R0) had also declined since the 1960s.

177 The basic reproduction number (R0) is an important quantity summarising the dynamics of

178 sion, such as the basic reproduction number (R0).

179 gs by varying the basic reproduction number (R0).

180 The estimated mean reproductive number (R0 = approximately 1.01) from global and Ontario sequenc

181 er values for the basic reproductive number (R0) are consistent with observed epidemic growth, and R0

182 n increase in the basic reproductive number (R0) in response to increasing population density; (2) a

183 of origin and the basic reproductive number (R0) of clusters were estimated by Bayesian methods.

184 idence rates, the basic reproductive number (R0), reporting rate, population mixing intensity, and am

185 s estimates of YF basic reproductive number (R0).

186 l estimate of the basic reproduction number, R0, weighted by provincial population size, was 26.63 fo

187 The basic reproductive number, R0, is estimated at 3.0 (standard deviation 0.6) across

188 h, the estimated basic reproduction numbers (R0 ) are 1.71 (95% CI, 1.44 to 2.01) for Guinea, 1.83 (9

189 (lambda(t)) and basic reproductive numbers (R0) of dengue were estimated for the periods 1969-1980 a

190 Aggregate rate (AR) of R0 resection for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.8008 (0.3636-

191 An international, multicenter cohort of R0 resected HCC patients were categorized by MC status a

192 The same definition of R0 is likely inappropriate considering the anatomy and e

193 The strict definition of R0 requiring a 1 mm tumor-free margin is not commonly ac

194 and ypT1aN0 were seen in a limited number of R0 resected specimens (19.8% and 7.3%, respectively), wh

195 to lower patients burden, a higher number of R0-resections and lower recurrence rates with less need

196 Percentages of R0 resections (93%) did not differ between groups.

197 r, benefits included increased proportion of R0 margin and lymph nodes harvested, and reduced 30-day

198 This relatively low range of R0 suggests that intervention strategies developed for o

199 The rate of R0 resection was 95.7% in group L and 92.7% in group O (

200 TTE achieved a higher rate of R0 resections (86.2% vs 73.2%; P = 0.001) and a higher m

201 Extended TTE achieved a higher rate of R0 resections, a higher lymph node yield, and resulted i

202 39.1% (95% CI, 26.9%-52.8%), and the rate of R0 surgical conversions was 28.1% (95% CI, 18.1%-40.8%).

203 ue in an attempt to achieve a higher rate of R0.

204 The rates of R0 (>/=1 mm margin), R1 (<1 mm clearance), and R1 (direc

205 Comparable rates of R0 resection (88% vs 88%, P = 0.999), median recurrence-

206 The rates of R0 resection and pathologic invasion of venous and arter

207 rvival, overall response rates, and rates of R0 surgical conversions and overall surgical conversions

208 relationship was maintained in the subset of R0 patients with PFS (18.3 v 33.2 months; DS moderate or

209 dynamic and defined through a fixed value of R0 in each province.

210 ma of the uncinate process should be offered R0 or R1 resection whenever technically feasible.

211 a 50% increase in deoxygenated hemoglobin on R0 and R8.

212 of the muscle-pump baroreflex was reduced on R0 (0.73 +/- 0.2) compared to baseline (0.87 +/- 0.2) wi

213 for adjuvant chemotherapy after an optimal (R0) resection.

214 resection for lesions >=2 cm and to optimize R0 resection rates of lesions suspected of harboring hig

215 igher than controls (7 +/- 4, p < 0.0001) or R0 (16 +/- 11, p = 0.002) but not to R1 (28 +/- 9, p = 0

216 vated vs. controls (7 +/- 4, p < 0.0001), or R0 (16 +/- 11, p = 0.02).

217 rvival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), R0 resection rate, grade 3/4 adverse events, and subgrou

218 eoperation, readmission, oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph nodes harvested), and operative time

219 ng a 20% contribution of uDNA to the overall R0, our calculations suggest that R0=1.6 in the absence

220 n for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection).

221 A total of 79 eligible patients (R0, n = 54; R1, n = 25; EHCC, 68%; GBCA, 32%) were treat

222 Such findings transform a planned R0 resection to R1.

223 In 379 pN + R0 patients, the median number of positive lymph nodes w

224 had passed in the first affected population, R0 and pC could be well estimated.

225 Our predicted R0 is critically sensitive to the intensity of transmiss

226 s, 1639 adenocarcinoma patients with primary R0-resection were withheld after excluding 90-day mortal

227 PS-R0-neck was achieved in 1196 patients (85.5%), 131 patie

228 S of converting an FS-R1-neck margin to a PS-R0-neck margin by additional resection was assessed.

229 Median OS for PS-R0-neck patients was 21.1 months versus 13.7 months for

230 d by resection margin (group I: FS-R0 --> PS-R0; group II: FS-R1 --> PS-R0; group III: FS-R1 --> PS-R

231 p I: FS-R0 --> PS-R0; group II: FS-R1 --> PS-R0; group III: FS-R1 --> PS-R1).

232 and more node positivity (P = 0.08) than PS-R0-neck patients.

233 Both FS-R1-to-PS-R0 and PS-R1-neck patients had larger tumors (P = 0.001)

234 ients (5.1%) were converted from FS-R1-to-PS-R0 by additional resection.

235 for adverse pathologic factors, FS-R1-to-PS-R0 conversion remained associated with significantly wor

236 (P < 0.001) and 11.9 months for FS-R1-to-PS-R0 patients (P < 0.001).

237 with significantly worse OS compared with PS-R0-neck patients (hazard ratio: 1.55; P = 0.009).

238 Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of

239 fashion resulting in relatively low radical (R0)-resection rates and high recurrence rates.

240 rial, and compared resection rates, radical (R0) resection rates and overall survival (OS) between th

241 Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival.

242 on of smFRET data, including Forster radius (R0) and fluorophore orientation factor (kappa2) determin

243 The net reproductive rate (R0) and intrinsic rate of increase (r) of the T. ni stra

244 g of the pathogen's basic reproductive rate (R0), is epidemiologically more important than vector com

245 as measured by blood loss, transfusion rate, R0 negative margin rate, postoperative peak bilirubin, p

246 The basic reproductive ratio (R0) is determined by both the nature of pathogen and the

247 dically change the basic reproductive ratio (R0) of an infection and additionally the impact of vecto

248 e epidemiology the basic reproductive ratio, R0, is defined as the average number of new infections c

249 etails from real patients that have received R0 resection, only 14% to 53% of participating surgeons

250 tegy (alone and combined) in order to reduce R0 to unity, along with the associated costs.

251 s, 3D7 and FC27), MSP3, GLURP (both regions, R0 and R2), and AMA1 antigens of Plasmodium falciparum.

252 Reported R0/R1 rates and associated survival are highly heterogen

253 In radically resected (R0) specimens 19.8% (27/136) had a pCR (ypT0N0) and 14%

254 We randomly assigned patients with resected (R0) stage III disease (1:1) to receive 12 cycles of FOLF

255 ntified with macroscopic complete resection (R0, R1) of abdominal and retroperitoneal soft-tissue sar

256 As a result, R0 was typically higher in FLAPS configurations, and the

257 For group CRT compared with group S, R0 resection rate was 93.8% versus 92.1% (P = .749), wit

258 or anal cancer.Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection was the main factor associated with long-te

259 iently ( approximately 50%) than the smaller R0 isoform ( approximately 20%), suggesting that CD45 is

260 g theatre, and 26 (87%) underwent successful R0 resection.

261 We also identified a repeat, termed R0, that can function as a DNA enhancer element within t

262 e, patients with MR had worse prognosis than R0 patients (PFS, 15 v 29 months; P < .01; OS, 41 v 77 m

263 he overall R0, our calculations suggest that R0=1.6 in the absence of virus integration.

264 The R0 (circumferential resection margin negative) resection

265 The R0 resection rate was 71% (51 of 72) in patients who rec

266 ssessment of circumferential margins and the R0 definition with a 1 mm free margin were introduced in

267 l rate increased from 13/15 to 15/15 and the R0 resection rate increased from 9/15 (69,2%) to 15/15 (

268 han in the standard resection group, but the R0 resection rate was comparable.

269 Overall, the R0 is estimated to be 0.44 (95%-confidence interval 0.42

270 dels may be dramatically underestimating the R0 of contagions.

271 had preoperative chemoradiotherapy and then R0 resections.

272 nsition of CBSV from sub- to super-threshold R0 in sub-Saharan Africa.

273 sgenic B. distachyon plants expressing Tnt1 (R0) and in the subsequent regenerants (R1) we observed t

274 values, uDNA can maximally contribute 20% to R0 in this case.

275 ynaptic transmission, uDNA can contribute to R0 regardless of the number of uDNA copies required for

276 for replication, uDNA does not contribute to R0.

277 wever, the lower the contribution of uDNA to R0 because this increases the chances that at least one

278 uDNA might contribute about 20% to the total R0.

279 Conclusion Patients with NSCLC who undergo R0 resection and are found to have pN2 disease have impr

280 Most patients (77.7% [115 of 148]) underwent R0 resection, and 8.8% (13 of 148) of the patients had N

281 In arm B, 81% underwent R0 resection.

282 Most patients underwent R0 resection (75%) and 9% had N1 disease.

283 Most patients underwent R0 resection (87.9%), and 35.7% of patients had N1 disea

284 al vaccination fractions, estimated by using R0, have not accompanied the increase in age at exposure

285 o the basic reproductive ratio of the virus, R0, and the models are parameterized with preliminary da

286 The primary outcome was R0 resection rate.

287 l setting under which prevalence decays when R0<1, and a setting in which subthreshold endemic equili

288 likelihood of malaria persistence even when R0<1.

289 n data that included a rapid outbreak, while R0 and Sackin's index (overall tree shape statistic) wer

290 With R0, R1 (<1 mm), and R1 (direct) status the median surviv

291 pancreatic vascular axis was associated with R0 resection in 91% of cases (20 of 22 patients, positiv

292 portal vein was associated in all cases with R0 resection (10 of 10 patients, positive predictive val

293 of resected lymph nodes (P > 0.05), nor with R0 resection rates (P > 0.05).

294 From the patients with R0 resection and M0 category, 3 groups with significantl

295 iotherapy; cohort one included patients with R0 resection and pN2 disease, whereas cohort two include

296 om 2004 to 2013, we identified patients with R0 resection of nonmetastatic PDAC.

297 Patients were matched with 80 patients with R0 resections according to age, body mass index, gender,

298 ignificantly different between patients with R0 versus R1 margins (2- and 5-year local recurrence fre

299 ignificantly different between patients with R0 versus R1 margins but wider resection margins do not

300 served across subdistricts and schools, with R0 ranging between 1.7 and 6.8.

301 in lambda(t) from 0.038/year to 0.019/year, R0 changed only from 3.3 to 3.2.