ライフサイエンスコーパス: skin toxicity

1 ed with RT (xerostomia, mucositis, and local skin toxicity).

2 hough it is efficacious, erlotinib can cause skin toxicity.

3 ulation in the skin and heart and eliminated skin toxicity.

4 th the observed moist desquamation radiation skin toxicity.

5 mpletion of chemoradiation or on recovery of skin toxicity.

6 mcitabine, including two instances of severe skin toxicity.

7 creening and showed potential for predicting skin toxicity.

8 Common adverse events (all grades) were: skin toxicity (150 mg, 29%; 300 mg, 67%), diarrhea (150

9 atin cohort (panitumumab v control) included skin toxicity (36% v 1%), diarrhea (24% v 13%), infectio

10 f 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs

11 gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade

12 Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAP

13 s584547 were found to be novel risk loci for skin toxicity and dysphagia in NPC patients receiving ra

14 ivery vectors and diagnostic agents, but the skin toxicity and irritation potential of QDs are unknow

15 conformity about the intended target, reduce skin toxicity, and improve plan robustness.

16 Skin toxicities are the most common adverse events with

17 29 reported grade 2 toxicities, with grade 2 skin toxicities being the most frequent (16 of 67; 24%).

18 only shows reasonable accuracy in predicting skin toxicity but also enables cross-study comparison an

19 to pre-emptive or reactive treatment (after skin toxicity developed).

20 e potential of Raman spectroscopy to predict skin toxicity due to tyrosine kinase inhibitors treatmen

21 The incidence of specific >or= grade 2 skin toxicities during the 6-week skin treatment period

22 incidence of protocol-specified >or= grade 2 skin toxicities during the 6-week skin treatment period

23 incidence of protocol-specified >or= grade 2 skin toxicities during the 6-week skin treatment period.

24 inhibitors, which are known to induce severe skin toxicity; for this pilot study, three patients were

25 had interruption of oncologic therapy due to skin toxicity; four of six (67%) were successfully recha

26 Patient 2 experienced skin toxicity from the conditioning regimen and hyperten

27 sthenia, transaminase elevation, nausea, and skin toxicities (grade 1 to 2 in most patients).

28 dverse events of immediate radiotherapy were skin toxicity (grade 1 in 50 [54%] and grade 2 in four [

29 delay surgery but induced unexpected severe skin toxicity, hampering domatinostat dose escalation.

30 4 +/- 5 ug mL(-1) revealed no acute in vitro skin toxicity (IC(50): 95 ug mL(-1)) and skin sensitizat

31 verse events in the treatment group included skin toxicity, impaired activity, damage to surrounding

32 ive and reactive skin treatment for specific skin toxicities in patients with mCRC for any EGFR inhib

33 The hazard ratio for survival by skin toxicity in cetuximab-treated patients was 0.42 (95

34 Despite reports of skin toxicity in hemochromatosis, little is known about

35 tems could have significant implications for skin toxicity in living subjects.

36 97, rs4848598, and rs2091255 correlated with skin toxicity in patients of EBV positive, late stage (I

37 Skin toxicity in patients receiving cetuximab has been a

38 f Raman spectroscopy to detect apparition of skin toxicity in patients treated with tyrosine kinase i

39 Skin toxicity is a common safety concern associated with

40 Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the skin toxicity mechanisms involving the AhR, as well as t

41 Grade 3-4 skin toxicity occurred in 62 (13%) patients given panitu

42 The objective was to characterize the skin toxicity of benznidazole in patients with Chagas di

43 s one [<1%] in the erlotinib group), whereas skin toxicity (one [<1%] vs 22 [16%]) was the most frequ

44 Grade 3/4 skin toxicity or diarrhea was encountered in five and th

45 acids can induce calcium dissolution without skin toxicity or irritancy.

46 Skin toxicity outside of the RT field was not strictly d

47 The most common grade 3 events were skin toxicity (rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesi

48 At 17 mg/m(2)/d, skin toxicity required a 2-week treatment break for all

49 d according to the National Cancer Institute skin toxicity scale, offering a basis for describing cut

50 ionated radiotherapy group had grade 3 acute skin toxicity than in the conventional fractionated radi

51 Both findings were independent of skin toxicity that was itself significantly correlated t

52 ructed tissues were exposed to drugs causing skin toxicity, the thickness evaluation of epidermal lay

53 The incidence of grade 3 skin toxicities was reduced in patients who were treated

54 The observed rate of > or = grade 2 skin toxicity was 0% (0 of 25; one-sided 95% CI, 0% to 1

55 The incidence of skin toxicity was 84% regardless of treatment arm.

56 In contrast to other reports, development of skin toxicity was a statistically significant predictor

57 Skin toxicity was common.

58 Cycle 1 CTCAE skin toxicity was higher in the ULABTKA arm but not sign

59 Skin toxicity was present in 37 patients (62%), and diar

60 Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related a

61 Performance status and development of skin toxicity were found to be strong predictors of resp

62 Expected dose-related diarrhea and skin toxicity were observed in gefitinib-treated patient

63 atoh et al. define a mechanism for acneiform skin toxicity wherein EGFR/MEK inhibitors cooperate with

64 synthesis by the spheroids and evaluation of skin toxicity with chemical agents showed a correlation

65 lains the basis underlying sorafenib-induced skin toxicity, with important implications for the thera