ライフサイエンスコーパス: TNM staging

1 V) that correspond to those obtained by full TNM staging.

2 ved patient subcategorization beyond current TNM staging.

3 tegories of greater utility than traditional TNM staging.

4 T scan, PSA doubling time, Gleason score and TNM staging.

5 TTP regardless of histopathologic grade and TNM staging.

6 scan, PSA doubling time, Gleason score, and TNM staging.

7 cancer patients and a better model fit than TNM staging.

8 stication accuracy of tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging.

9 more likely to have stage 2 disease based on TNM staging (62 of 183 patients [33.9%] vs 47 of 275 pat

10 atient level, it provides more accuracy than TNM staging alone and could help in the delivery of tail

11 After adjusting for age, gender, TNM staging and grading, cox regression analysis showed

12 ides important information beyond pathologic TNM staging and primary tumor regression grading.

13 he esophagus (EAC) is based on post-surgical TNM staging and valid biomarkers are still not implement

14 ndependent of clinical covariates, including TNM staging, and was associated with a poor therapeutic

15 ding to (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT was compared with TNM staging based on ceCT and changes in oncologic manag

16 ts underwent contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) for TNM staging before (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT imaging.

17 72% of patients, whereas the concordance of TNM staging between (68)Ga-PSMA PET and diagnostic CT wa

18 Personal View addresses whether the current TNM staging classification accurately represents a disti

19 ancer (AJCC) staging manual has introduced a TNM staging classification for jejunal-ileal (midgut) ne

20 l (seventh edition) has introduced its first TNM staging classification for pancreatic neuroendocrine

21 The ninth edition of the TNM staging classification of pleural mesothelioma is an

22 The NET societies have recently proposed a TNM staging classification.

23 Study Group modified Tumor-Node-Metastases (TNM) Staging Classification.

24 TNM staging criteria and margin status confers prognosti

25 with T1 lesions under both the 1987 and 1997 TNM staging criteria, no statistically significant diffe

26 vasion should be considered for inclusion in TNM staging criteria.

27 orized by both the 1987 and the revised 1997 TNM staging criteria.

28 to the American Joint Commission for Cancer (TNM) staging criteria, margin status, and molecular subt

29 oth the 1997 and 1987 tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging criteria.

30 ng 35 countries with available breast cancer TNM staging data, all 20 that achieved sustained mean re

31 Consensus TNM staging (derived from CT, endobronchial ultrasound-g

32 histologic grade, incidental diagnosis, and TNM staging (European Neuroendocrine Tumors Society [ENE

33 Here, we present BB-TEN: Big Bird - TNM staging Extracted from Notes, a generalizable method

34 stasis-blood (TNMB) classification surpasses TNM staging for prognostic prediction at the decision po

35 tive (18)F-FDG-avid lesions and provided the TNM staging for the 5 patients referred for initial stag

36 The eighth edition tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging for head and neck cutaneous squamous cell c

37 wide range of survival estimates even within TNM staging groups, with quintiles of prediction within

38 TNM staging has made a major contribution to the clinica

39 12/1,003) on PET/MRI, leading to a change in TNM staging in 0.5% (5/1,003).

40 (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT results led to changes in TNM staging in 10 of 19 patients.

41 d in 5.3% (53/1,003), leading to a change in TNM staging in 2.9% (29/1,003) due to PET/MRI.

42 es to refine clinical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging in lung adenocarcinoma, ctDNA dynamics duri

43 (12/1003) by PET/MRI leading to a change in TNM-staging in 0.5% (5/1003).

44 ed in 5.3% (53/1003), leading to a change in TNM-staging in 2.9% (29/1003) due to PET/MRI.

45 ay now be applied to many other patients and TNM staging is an evolving narrative.

46 TNM staging is an inadequate prognostic indicator of ind

47 Lower TNM staging, longer interval to metastasis, and single m

48 Ps and progression factors of HCC, including TNM staging, metastasis, and cancer embolus; Overall, th

49 Inclusion of C stage into the AJCC TNM staging of colon cancer revealed significant differe

50 be a useful additional component in routine TNM staging of CRC.

51 TNM-staging of colorectal carcinomas (CRC) relies on the

52 (P = .006) and in tumors with more advanced TNM staging (P < .001).

53 torical nondescript CUP diagnosis allows for TNM staging, precision site-specific therapy (SST), prog

54 of pleural mesothelioma is an update in the TNM staging, refining the tumor descriptors with the fir

55 In thymic epithelial tumors, clinical TNM staging relies predominantly on cross-sectional imag

56 However, there is debate whether TNM staging should be the only factor in considering if

57 The American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging showed limited prognostic usefulness, only b

58 cation was influenced by the key elements of TNM staging: simplicity, clinical usefulness, efficacy f

59 We evaluated associations with tumor status, TNM staging, survival prognosis, and response to adjuvan

60 Compared with the 2002 TNM staging system (C-index, 0.60), most models only mar

61 incorporated TNP was superior to the current TNM staging system (P< .001).

62 is view provides a mechanistic basis for the TNM staging system and is the rationale for surgical res

63 The current AJCC TNM staging system classified 941 of these patients (28.

64 e current (seventh and eighth editions) AJCC TNM staging system correlates with survival for patients

65 The current AJCC TNM staging system could be improved with the new TNM gr

66 be considered for the future edition of the TNM staging system for esophageal cancer.

67 T category in the 7th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system for eyelid carcinoma correlates with

68 he American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system for medullary thyroid cancer (MTC).

69 The current AJCC TNM staging system for MTC appears to be less than optim

70 nion for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM staging system for OPC was developed for HPV-unrelat

71 The TNM staging system for primary OAL is useful for precise

72 yet to be a study using the most up-to-date TNM staging system for this rare but aggressive tumor.

73 R-stage schema that outperformed the current TNM staging system in disease-free and overall survival

74 r individual discrimination than the current TNM staging system in numerous patient tumor models.

75 ew classification outperformed the currently TNM staging system in risk stratification and may facili

76 The TNM staging system is currently the most extensively use

77 ow after preoperative chemoradiotherapy, the TNM staging system may not provide an accurate assessmen

78 (CEA) levels (C stage) into the conventional TNM staging system of colon cancer.

79 n patients with stage T1aN0 NSCLC (using the TNM staging system seventh edition) and demonstrated the

80 A TNM staging system that incorporated TNP reduced early-s

81 revealed that the prognostic accuracy of the TNM staging system that incorporated TNP was superior to

82 tional OPC N categories in the new AJCC/UICC TNM staging system that is currently being developed.

83 The seventh edition TNM staging system was compared with models supplementin

84 against the current UICC/AJCC eighth edition TNM staging system was evaluated for hazard consistency,

85 Increasing T category of the TNM staging system was predictive of DSS (P = .04) in pr

86 These models along with the TNM staging system were validated using 1,647 patients w

87 According to the TNM staging system, 43 of 57 (75.4%) had T2 tumors.

88 With the traditional TNM staging system, there was no difference in survival

89 iminating survival than was the current AJCC TNM staging system.

90 re more distinct than under the current AJCC TNM staging system.

91 to survival than does the current AJCC/UICC TNM staging system.

92 nagement but are not included in the current TNM staging system.

93 RSS), and American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system.

94 the 1988 American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system.

95 Control (AJCC/UICC) tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system provides the current guidelines for

96 e authors sought to evaluate whether the new TNM staging systems proposed by the American Joint Commi

97 n included in the new tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging systems developed for the American Joint Co

98 s are hampered by the inaccuracy of clinical TNM staging, the variability of indications for neoadjuv

99 tions in molecular pathways could supplement TNM staging to more accurately predict clinical outcome

100 oved the ability of Tumor, Node, Metastasis (TNM) staging to predict postrecurrence survival; MI was

101 sis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatm

102 min after injection, and in 9.2% a change in TNM staging was found.

103 ystem was compared with models supplementing TNM staging with additional demographic and tumor variab