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 significance have resulted in a new form of watchful waiting.

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

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

6 roved more with adenotonsillectomy than with watchful waiting.

7 ceipt of supraglottoplasty after a period of watchful waiting.

8 with long-term benefits for NE compared with watchful waiting.

9 is needed to compare safety and efficacy to watchful waiting.

10 rly rituximab monotherapy when compared with watchful waiting.

11 ctive surveillance for PC and 7478 underwent watchful waiting.

12 ents treated with conservative management on watchful waiting.

13 similar to those without reflux managed with watchful waiting.

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

15 to early adenotonsillectomy or a strategy of watchful waiting.

16 only interval repeat biopsies to monitor by watchful waiting.

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

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

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

20 nagement programme are already being used in watchful waiting.

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

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

23 % assigned to receive repair crossed over to watchful waiting.

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

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

26 With watchful waiting, 39% ultimately required repair (14% em

27 2% to 0.07%) between the AT (59 [30.7%]) and watchful-waiting (67 [33.3%]) groups.

28 nts were randomly assigned, including 183 to watchful waiting, 82 to rituximab induction, and 190 to

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

30 4.5-10.9) at the center favoring biopsy and watchful waiting and 7.1 years (interquartile range, 4.2

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

32 2%) and 74% (95% CI, 64%-84%) for biopsy and watchful waiting and early resection, respectively.

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

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

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

36 extended QALYs and life-years compared with watchful waiting and non-MRI strategies.

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

38 e randomized to either adenotonsillectomy or watchful waiting and were followed for 12 months.

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

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

41 using simulated office visits to encourage a watchful waiting approach for acute low back pain, the i

42 lar and thromboembolic complications, with a watchful waiting approach often used in patients who are

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

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

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

46 ren randomized to adenotonsillectomy (AT) vs watchful waiting are lacking.

47 Watchful waiting as traditionally practiced involves the

48 o prediction models: (1) Active surveillance/watchful waiting (AS/WW), radical prostatectomy (RP), an

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

50 ed 5.2% or yearly recurrence exceeded 19.2%, watchful waiting became preferred.

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

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

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

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

55 of alarming symptoms and laboratory markers, watchful waiting could be an appropriate therapeutic app

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

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

58 Epidemiology, and End Results Prostate with Watchful Waiting database were included (n = 255,837).

59 mild SDB, adenotonsillectomy, compared with watchful waiting, did not significantly improve executiv

60 res: -3.1 for adenotonsillectomy vs -1.9 for watchful waiting; difference, -0.96 [95% CI, -2.66 to 0.

61 cores: 0.2 for adenotonsillectomy vs 0.1 for watchful waiting; difference, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.2

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

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

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

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

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

67 tuximab maintenance groups compared with the watchful waiting group (rituximab induction vs watchful

68 imab induction group, and 34% (27-42) in the watchful waiting group had not started new treatment.

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

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

71 les at 12-month follow-up, compared with the watchful waiting group.

72 uction group, and 5.6 years (3.8-8.4) in the watchful waiting group.

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

74 nsillectomy group compared with 13.2% in the watchful waiting group; difference, -11.2% [97% CI, -17.

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

76 cantly (-0.5%; 95% CI, -5.4% to 6.4%) in the watchful-waiting group (n = 66) at follow-up.

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

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

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

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

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

82 The odds of NE in the watchful-waiting group were approximately 2 times higher

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

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

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

86 omy or randomization between the surgery and watchful waiting groups.

87 tchful waiting group (rituximab induction vs watchful waiting: hazard ratio [HR] 0.55 [95% CI 0.38-0.

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

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

90 38-0.80], p=0.0019; rituximab maintenance vs watchful waiting: HR 0.36 [0.26-0.50], p<0.0001).

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

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

93 Adenotonsillectomy vs watchful waiting in children with NE.

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

95 ians might consider supportive treatment and watchful waiting in stable patients until the causative

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

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

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

99 Watchful waiting is a well known approach to the managem

100 Watchful waiting is an acceptable option for men with mi

101 While watchful waiting is an option for some asymptomatic pati

102 sk of perioperative mortality or recurrence, watchful waiting is preferred.

103 Recent data suggest watchful waiting is safe; however, long-term clinical an

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

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

106 lyzed sample (231 adenotonsillectomy and 237 watchful waiting; mean age, 6.1 years; 230 female [50%];

107 either early adenotonsillectomy (n = 231) or watchful waiting (n = 228).

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

109 ease control (DisC) measures, preferentially watchful waiting only.

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

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

112 ow-risk disease (that could be managed using watchful waiting or active surveillance).

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

114 Watchful waiting or active surveillance, radiation thera

115 ed children aged 3 to 12 years randomized to watchful waiting or adenotonsillectomy for mSDB (snoring

116 nonsevere OSA who were randomized to either watchful waiting or AT as part of the multicenter Childh

117 laryngomalacia initially managed with either watchful waiting or GERD medications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

128 The following strategies were compared: watchful waiting, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and an

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

130 ine US trends in use of active surveillance, watchful waiting, radiotherapy, and surgical management

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

132 Watchful waiting remained least expensive in all analyse

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

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

135 s 0-1 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) between watchful waiting, rituximab induction (375 mg/m(2), intr

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

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

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

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

140 ized controlled trials have indicated that a watchful waiting strategy (in the absence of life-threat

141 acement (AVR) or conservative treatment with watchful waiting strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

152 The watchful waiting trials demonstrated a small potential m

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

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

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

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

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

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

159 Watchful waiting was chosen by patients and proxies rega

160 Watchful waiting was chosen for 280 BCCs in 89 patients

161 Watchful waiting was generally less effective than treat

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

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

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

165 treatment, with ablative techniques, or with watchful waiting with active surveillance.

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

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

168 ere OSA by early adenotonsillectomy (eAT) vs watchful waiting with supportive care.

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

170 nd (3) communicate optimism while advocating watchful waiting without imaging.

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

172 nvestigated the benefit of ATE compared with watchful waiting (WW) after 3 years.

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

174 It is uncertain to what extent watchful waiting (WW) in men with nonmetastatic prostate

175 Few studies have examined watchful waiting (WW) in patients with basal cell carcin

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

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

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

179 biopsy with no MRI yielded 16.14 QALYs, and watchful waiting yielded 15.94 QALYs.