ライフサイエンスコーパス: rectal cancer

1 function after sphincter sparing surgery for rectal cancer.

2 entrations are decreased in colon but not in rectal cancer.

3 be clearly established for the treatment of rectal cancer.

4 and correlated with histological T stage of rectal cancer.

5 rature, including in patients with recurrent rectal cancer.

6 llowing laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

7 with MRI-defined high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer.

8 tractive alternative to select patients with rectal cancer.

9 ncer of the colon but minimal difference for rectal cancer.

10 ng-term organ-preservation rates among cT2N0 rectal cancer.

11 ision (TaTME) with laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer.

12 treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

13 endpoints used in trials for non-metastatic rectal cancer.

14 (CRT) response is a predictor of survival in rectal cancer.

15 fter eAPR with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer.

16 similar, although C was slightly higher for rectal cancer.

17 c safety of laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer.

18 al benefit in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

19 rs better local control in the management of rectal cancer.

20 ajor complications after rectal excision for rectal cancer.

21 ectal excision is the mainstay treatment for rectal cancer.

22 and radiation therapy (CRT) in patients with rectal cancer.

23 prove chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.

24 tomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer.

25 pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

26 pic (LRR) vs open (ORR) rectal resection for rectal cancer.

27 is needed in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

28 arly postoperative outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.

29 strate intratumoral genetic heterogeneity in rectal cancer.

30 maging texture features derived from primary rectal cancer.

31 nts undergoing proctectomy for nonmetastatic rectal cancer.

32 of germline alterations in the MMR genes in rectal cancer.

33 is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer.

34 ged as a management option for patients with rectal cancer.

35 social functions were significantly worse in rectal cancer.

36 during preoperative CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer.

37 referred for management of a newly diagnosed rectal cancer.

38 weeks between the end of CRT and surgery, in rectal cancer.

39 Most symptoms were more present in rectal cancer.

40 eoadjuvant therapy (TNT) on locally advanced rectal cancer.

41 chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer.

42 e of pathological complete response (pCR) in rectal cancer.

43 apy in patients with resectable stage II-III rectal cancer.

44 e to conventional low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

45 motherapy with observation for patients with rectal cancer.

46 bdominal resection for patients with stage I rectal cancer.

47 r robotic compared to LLAR in the setting of rectal cancer.

48 counseling patients anticipating surgery for rectal cancer.

49 val after laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer.

50 reatment response in study participants with rectal cancer.

51 d composite ratios in patients with operable rectal cancer.

52 ease-free survival (DFS) in locally advanced rectal cancer.

53 TNT is an alternative to neoadjuvant CRT for rectal cancer.

54 and morbidity after abdominal resection for rectal cancer.

55 ion is standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer.

56 n to be prognostic in patients with operable rectal cancer.

57 a following laparoscopic or open surgery for rectal cancer.

58 r at a 2-year time point after resection for rectal cancer.

59 ngland to 4106 (70.8%) of 5797 in Sweden for rectal cancer.

60 surrogate for tumor biology and prognosis in rectal cancer.

61 riod, blacks and whites had similar rates of rectal cancer.

62 te consistency in reporting trial results in rectal cancer.

63 tumoral heterogeneity is present among naive rectal cancers.

64 inely tested, but little is known about dMMR rectal cancers.

65 ive resection margins after resection of low rectal cancers.

66 onsistently elevated in radioresistant human rectal cancers.

67 fluence on the oncological outcomes of T3/T4 rectal cancers.

68 is the optimal surgical technique for distal rectal cancers?

69 it on 2 consecutive days in 14 patients with rectal cancer (11 men [mean age, 61.7 years], three wome

70 n England to 4429 [80.9%] of 5474 in Sweden; rectal cancer 4663 [45.7%] of 10 195 in England to 1342

71 al cancer 86.4%, 95% CI 85.0-87.6; stage III rectal cancer 75.5%, 74.2-76.7; and stage IV colon cance

72 was consistently lower in England (stage II rectal cancer 86.4%, 95% CI 85.0-87.6; stage III rectal

73 The majority had APR for rectal cancer (87%).

74 o lower in England than in Denmark (stage II rectal cancer 91.2%, 88.8-93.1; and stage IV colon cance

75 rapy (RT) is a mainstay in the management of rectal cancer, a tumor characterized by desmoplastic str

76 lection for lung recurrence in patients with rectal cancer after multidisciplinary treatment.

77 with a reduction in pCR for locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in this N

78 salvage surgery on survival in patients with rectal cancer after receiving multidisciplinary treatmen

79 total mesorectal excision for nonmetastatic rectal cancer after SC-TNT or CRT between 2010 and 2018.

80 ere associated with risk of distal colon and rectal cancers, after adjusting for other risk factors (

81 nce rate was also observed for patients with rectal cancer aged 35 to 49 years.

82 k to CRC in the Koreans, especially risk for rectal cancer alone.

83 -0.05-0.37) for CRC and 0.41 (0.10-0.68) for rectal cancer alone.

84 For rectal cancer, an increase of local recurrences (13.3% v

85 s were analyzed comprising 634 patients with rectal cancer and 86 with benign pathology.

86 el prognostic factor in pathologic stage III rectal cancer and may guide surveillance and adjuvant th

87 ppears as an alternative in the treatment of rectal cancer and other rectal disease.

88 for other tumours, such as locally recurrent rectal cancer and pancreatic cancer.

89 s comprised esophageal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer and pancreatic cancer.

90 l outcome after laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer and seems as a safe option to preserve the

91 3-year survival after stage II rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was also lower i

92 3-year survival after stage II or III rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was consistently

93 on fFOV DWI in differentiating T staging of rectal cancer and the 90th percentile ADC from rFOV DWI

94 ach of prostate, colon, renal papillary, and rectal cancer and three nonmelanoma skin cancers) among

95 Participants had histologically confirmed rectal cancer and underwent routine diagnostic MRI, an e

96 tic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer, and the proportion of leakages that devel

97 utcomes in patients subjected to surgery for rectal cancer are lacking.

98 Patients with cT2N0 rectal cancer are more likely to develop complete respon

99 tations detected in different fragments from rectal cancers are frequently unique to a single fragmen

100 ts may not support laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer as a routine standard of care and further

101 detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography a

102 patients with stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer at 17 institutions in the USA and Canada.

103 to-end anastomosis (SE) for treatment of low rectal cancer at a 2-year time point after resection for

104 significantly different to OPEN resection of rectal cancer based on the outcomes of DFS and recurrenc

105 Those with rectal cancers benefited most from follow-up.ISRCTN 4145

106 on or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between April 2009 and April 2016 via a ro

107 iological relevance of COASY as a predictive rectal cancer biomarker for radiation response and offer

108 EMVI is a prognostic factor in rectal cancer but whether this remains so after CRT preo

109 institutions and 11 subjects diagnosed with rectal cancer but with no clinical or MRI indications of

110 comes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and r

111 and radiation therapy (CRT) in patients with rectal cancer by using histogram analysis derived from w

112 In this nationwide study, resection of low rectal cancers by ELAPE did not improve short-term oncol

113 a luminal CR after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer can be identified by endoscopy at +/-9 wee

114 Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer can be performed with good short and mediu

115 actually represent increasing disparities in rectal cancer care rather than innovation.

116 A total of 1019 incident colon and rectal cancer cases with available F nucleatum data were

117 o 20% of all colorectal and 8% to 34% of all rectal cancer cases, depending on age group and calendar

118 000), ultimately accounting for 22.6% of all rectal cancer cases.

119 Targeting p57Kip2 in primary rectal cancer cells and tumor models resulted in increas

120 ests the need for specialized designation of rectal cancer centers to support ongoing regionalization

121 morbidity outcomes, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer could be considered a routine technique as

122 oadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer could increase pathological downstaging an

123 Retrospective review of patients with rectal cancer cT2-4N0-2M0 treated with nCRT.

124 OM demonstrates promise for the treatment of rectal cancer; currently, however, the most appropriate

125 e, cetuximab, and ramucirumab for metastatic rectal cancer (diagnosed in November 2013 and treated th

126 of a pelvic drain after rectal excision for rectal cancer did not confer any benefit to the patient.

127 Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer did not differ significantly from open sur

128 females who smoke may have a higher risk of rectal cancer due to smoking than their male counterpart

129 et CRC have largely been due to increases in rectal cancer, especially in whites.

130 colon (FFT: n = 52 and LFT: n = 54) and 157 rectal cancer (FFT: n = 78 and LFT: n = 79).

131 t of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with rectal cancer following radiotherapy or chemoradiation r

132 s with cT1-4 (T1-2 for anterior wall) N0-2M0 rectal cancer from 11 institutions were enrolled, and ra

133 udy of 233 patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer from January 2007-October 2015.

134 cancer but larger increases in survival with rectal cancer (from 55.3% to 70.8%).

135 ns will continue to advance the treatment of rectal cancer, further emphasizing the need for a multid

136 tudy has shown poor compliance with national rectal cancer guidelines, but whether this finding is re

137 dMMR rectal cancer had excellent prognosis and pathologic res

138 Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been adopted worldwide, after trials r

139 lization of laparoscopic and robotic LAR for rectal cancer has steadily increased.

140 The management of care for rectal cancer has undergone many changes and improvement

141 impacts of a minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer have yet to be defined.

142 f localized, regional, and distant colon and rectal cancers have increased.

143 d with all CRC cancer subsites, particularly rectal cancer (HRQ5 vs. Q1: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.87; P-

144 84; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.96; P-trend = 0.005) and rectal cancer (HRQ5 vs. Q1: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.88; P-

145 lines (colon cancer: DLD-1, HCT116 and HT29; rectal cancer: HT55, SW837 and VACO4S) maintained in hyp

146 pared LRR with ORR for histologically proven rectal cancer in adult patients and reported pathologic

147 surgery would be for patients with stage III rectal cancer in England (increasing from 70.3% to 88.2%

148 Survival from colon cancer and rectal cancer in England and colon cancer in Denmark was

149 rm accurate localization and segmentation of rectal cancer in MR imaging in the majority of patients.

150 s after rectal resection and anastomosis for rectal cancer in selected patients without clinical or r

151 aroscopy was noninferior to open surgery for rectal cancer in terms of individual quality of surgical

152 All patients with rectal cancer in the National Cancer Data Base undergoin

153 ectional study of low anterior resection for rectal cancer in the Netherlands in 2011, with almost ro

154 sive (MIS) compared with open techniques for rectal cancer in the United States.

155 ltidisciplinary approach to the patient with rectal cancer includes many health care professionals.

156 The basis of the current treatment of rectal cancer is a radical total mesorectal excision of

157 Minimally invasive LAR for rectal cancer is associated with similar overall surviva

158 Surgery for rectal cancer is associated with substantial morbidity a

159 he role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial.

160 ut the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients w

161 ry and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is lacking.

162 The criterion standard surgical approach for rectal cancer is LAR + TME.

163 Local recurrence of rectal cancer is more common after abdominoperineal exci

164 nd response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in rectal cancer is not well understood.

165 The standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer is preoperative, long course (5-fluorourac

166 biobank from patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradia

167 ic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LARC).

168 r the curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

169 Despite advances in the management of rectal cancer, local recurrence still occurs.

170 had confirmed histopathological diagnosis of rectal cancer located within 15 cm from the anal verge,

171 sity of active surveillance in patients with rectal cancer managed by a watch-and-wait approach could

172 Patients with distal and nonmetastatic cT2N0 rectal cancer managed by neoadjuvant CRT were retrospect

173 A substantial proportion of patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait avoided major su

174 nging paradigms and current controversies in rectal cancer management.

175 Several clinical management decisions in rectal cancer may be influenced by pretreatment biopsy i

176 An integrated analysis of rectal cancer miRs may yield biomarkers of radioresistan

177 ual disease, the management of patients with rectal cancer, monitoring responses to therapy, and trac

178 In the TME trial, patients with rectal cancer (n = 1,530) were randomly allocated to pre

179 MRI assessment of rectal cancer not only assesses tumour depth and surgica

180 was defined as secondary proctectomy and/or rectal cancer occurrence.

181 n laparotomy and rectal resection (Open) for rectal cancer on locoregional recurrence (LRR) and disea

182 methods in 62 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer on pre- and post-CRT images.

183 en radiochemotherapy (RCT) and resection for rectal cancer on the rate of complete pathological respo

184 r automatic localization and segmentation of rectal cancers on multiparametric MR imaging.

185 Low rectal cancer oncological outcomes remain a global chall

186 Clinical Complete Response in Patients with Rectal Cancer (OnCoRe) was a propensity-score matched co

187 Our co-clinical trial data confirm that rectal cancer organoids (RCOs) closely recapitulate the

188 undergoing elective abdominal resection for rectal cancer over a 10-year period were recruited from

189 objective was to examine the use of NOM for rectal cancer over time, as well as the patient- and fac

190 In rectal cancer, pathologic lymph node status constitutes

191 , yet highly informative, method can improve rectal cancer patient selection for neoadjuvant therapy.

192 [2019]) demonstrate the successful use of rectal cancer patient-derived organoids to predict patie

193 and in unmatched (interpatient) samples from rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiothera

194 Rural rectal cancer patients are less likely to receive surger

195 ian 0.13 nM vs. 0.17 nM, P = 0.002), whereas rectal cancer patients had similar enterolactone levels

196 sive residual cancer) were assessed from 545 rectal cancer patients treated by nCRT followed by surge

197 CT can predict prognosis in locally advanced rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemorad

198 In rectal cancer patients treated with SC-TNT and proctecto

199 Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent procte

200 mpared short-term oncologic outcomes between rectal cancer patients undergoing either RLAR or LLAR.

201 Rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominop

202 7934 gastric, 15,908 pancreatic, and 21,354 rectal cancer patients were included of which 61.1%, 21.

203 Four-hundred-eleven locally advanced rectal cancer patients which were treated with neoadjuva

204 retrospectively identified from 2 cohorts of rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response

205 ditional recurrence-free survival (cRFS) for rectal cancer patients with complete clinical response (

206 potentially predict OS for locally advanced rectal cancer patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiation t

207 ction, and could be a better choice for male rectal cancer patients with specific staging and locatio

208 abic and test its psychometric properties in rectal cancer patients, in order to ease its use in clin

209 Forty-five rectal cancer patients, partial responders (PR = 18), no

210 ary ileostomy could reduce complications for rectal cancer patients.

211 tal mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer, patients who experience local or systemic

212 dictive and prognostic value of MRI-assessed rectal cancer perfusion, as a surrogate measure of hypox

213 For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of

214 n approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value.

215 of 1 and 2 years after a JP or a SE for low rectal cancer, QOL, functional outcome, and complication

216 Rectal cancer (RC) is a challenging disease to treat tha

217 SRCC was found in 0.9% (n = 622) rectal cancer (RC) patients in our study.

218 nosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around

219 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 2.24) but not rectal cancer (relative risk = 1.07, 95% confidence inte

220 Watch-and-wait approach in rectal cancer relies on the identification of a clinical

221 een elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resection in a daily practice multicenter

222 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by either high (upper

223 tic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection.

224 ten achieve superior surgical outcomes, many rectal cancer resections are performed by lower-volume h

225 pshot research project, data from registered rectal cancer resections in the Dutch Surgical Colorecta

226 n outcomes after esophageal, pancreatic, and rectal cancer resections.

227 A quarter of rectal cancer respondents (25.1%) reported difficulties

228 Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for stage II/III rectal cancer results in up to 49% of patients with a cl

229 intake was also not associated with colon or rectal cancer risk.

230 ary perineal closure for nonlocally advanced rectal cancer (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.68-1.64).

231 ts effective prediction models for colon and rectal cancer should be developed separately.

232 ancer susceptibility, but a possible role in rectal cancer should be further evaluated in larger coho

233 Identification of a dMMR rectal cancer should trigger germline testing, followed

234 a median follow-up of 6.8 years, the 5-year rectal cancer-specific survival was 100% for stage I and

235 Overall and rectal cancer-specific survival were calculated by the K

236 ge II/III), pancreatic (stage I/II/III), and rectal cancers (stage II/III) (2010-2015) treated with s

237 Background MRI is the standard tool for rectal cancer staging.

238 age group 50 to 79 years, relevant for most rectal cancer studies, the response rate was 70.5% (n =

239 ed to define R0 but this is based on primary rectal cancer studies.

240 All consecutive patients with middle or low rectal cancer submitted to surgery were included into a

241 For rectal cancer surgery (N=2328), all laparoscopic subgrou

242 LARS is a common after rectal cancer surgery and patients should be appropriate

243 Sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery is frequently accompanied by defae

244 Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited

245 Robotic rectal cancer surgery is strongly associated with better

246 Recent evolutions in rectal cancer surgery led to transanal dissection of the

247 Significant benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over laparoscopy have yet to be de

248 olvement, adjusted for other confounders, in rectal cancer surgery.

249 analysis support minimal volume standards in rectal cancer surgery.

250 justification of minimal volume standards in rectal cancer surgery.

251 the occurrence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.

252 examined for different outcome variables in rectal cancer surgery.

253 d without anastomotic leakage after colon or rectal cancer surgery.

254 d the relationship between tumor and the low rectal cancer surgical resection plane (mrLRP).

255 all cancer types, with, for example, 5-year rectal cancer survival increasing more than 13 percentag

256 Rectal cancer survival was lower in England (69.7%, 69.1

257 s a novel radiotherapy response modulator in rectal cancer that regulates PI3K activation and DNA rep

258 was to explore specific microRNAs (miRs) in rectal cancer that would predict response to radiation a

259 arantee the quality of surgical treatment of rectal cancer, the Association of Surgeons of the Nether

260 Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compare

261 e rate of positive CRM for patients with low rectal cancer, thereby improving oncological outcome.

262 patients with clinically staged T2N0 distal rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

263 tive adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation.

264 outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment, in support of ongoing clinical

265 outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment, in support of ongoing clinical

266 n scientific studies of bowel function after rectal cancer treatment.

267 al neoadjuvant therapy is a new paradigm for rectal cancer treatment.

268 tatus have been implicated in disparities of rectal cancer treatment.

269 may represent a companion diagnostic tool in rectal cancer treatment.

270 endpoints in phase 2 and phase 3 multimodal rectal cancer trials, resulting in inconsistency and dif

271 A total of 161 patients with primary rectal cancer undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy for resp

272 Between 1992 and 2012, 62 patients with dMMR rectal cancers underwent multimodality therapy.

273 sorectal excision specimens of patients with rectal cancer using ultrahigh field (16.4 T) MRI.

274 Laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer was associated with rates of locoregional

275 The increase in rectal cancer was larger in whites (from 2.7 to 4.5 per

276 Laparoscopic assisted resection of rectal cancer was not found to be significantly differen

277 fter eAPR with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer was not improved when using a biological m

278 Patients with stage II or III rectal cancer were assigned to group A for induction che

279 102 patients with rectal cancer were enrolled in this retrospective study.

280 had undergone surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer were identified.

281 d DWI) of 140 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were included in our analysis, equally div

282 In total, 2653 patients undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer were included.

283 However, patients with rectal cancer were specifically excluded from these land

284 orectal, left-side colon, sigmoid colon, and rectal cancers were not associated with gallstone diseas

285 We selected patients (aged >=18 years) with rectal cancer who had a clinical complete response after

286 a novel management strategy in patients with rectal cancer who have a clinical complete response afte

287 this retrospective study of 31 patients with rectal cancer who underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imag

288 ter study was conducted on patients with low rectal cancer who were randomized to receive either a JP

289 between 2010 and 2015 with locally advanced rectal cancer who were tested for MSI and treated defini

290 atients with locally advanced (cT3-4 or cN+) rectal cancer who were treated with preoperative chemora

291 , in 2030, the incidence rates for colon and rectal cancers will increase by 90.0% and 124.2%, respec

292 525489 was associated with increased risk of rectal cancer with a (Ptrend of = 0.0071).

293 view of consecutive patients operated on for rectal cancer with a mini-invasive approach at Mayo Clin

294 fety of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer with conflicting results.

295 ed without benchmarking the outcomes of dMMR rectal cancer with current therapy.

296 le smokers had a greater increase in risk of rectal cancer with number of pack-years of smoking (P fo

297 Tumors were mostly midrectal to lower rectal cancer, with a median distance from the anal verg

298 ative CRT increases the rate of pCR by 6% in rectal cancer, with similar outcomes and complication ra

299 f 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were random

300 pared LAP and OPEN resection of stage II/III rectal cancer, within 12 cm of the anal verge (T1-3, N0-