戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (left1)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1                                              CTCAE clinical descriptors have been developed empirical
2                                              CTCAE v4 grade >=3 adverse events were experienced by 62
3                                              CTCAE v4 grade 3 adverse events were experienced by 62%
4 gy Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0 (CTCAE), and Brock Ototoxicity Grades (Brock).
5 ogy Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE 4.0).
6 y Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03 [CTCAE v4.03]).
7                                      Cycle 1 CTCAE skin toxicity was higher in the ULABTKA arm but no
8                                      Grade 3 CTCAE gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in three (<
9                                      Grade 3 CTCAE genitourinary toxicity was observed in three (<1%)
10 associated with a 3-fold increase in grade 3 CTCAE toxic effects compared with other common formulae.
11 ssociations with non-RTW included grade >= 3 CTCAE toxicities (OR v no, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.18),
12 =6 months post-surgery) of at least grade 3 (CTCAE or Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organ
13  concurrent atorvastatin, 9.7% experienced a CTCAE grade 2 or higher cisplatin-induced hearing loss c
14                     No adverse events with a CTCAE grade of 4 or higher occurred.
15                                   We adapted CTCAE symptom items into patient language and uploaded t
16  CTCAE grade 1 renal impairment in 25.0% and CTCAE grade 2 in 18.8%.
17                        RTOG/EORTC (n=17) and CTCAE (n=15) criteria were most commonly used for clinic
18 OP scale may be superior to ASHA, Brock, and CTCAE scales for classifying ototoxicity in pediatric pa
19 ors of African ancestry with rs6689879*C and CTCAE grade 2-4 cardiomyopathy, the PHTF1 promoter regio
20 methylation among those with rs6689879*C and CTCAE grade 2-4 cardiomyopathy.
21                  Although both the Chang and CTCAE ototoxicity grades were significantly related to a
22                              Occurrences and CTCAE grades of the conditions for eligible non-SJLIFE p
23 G studies before and after OAC treatment and CTCAE 4.0-graded systemic adverse events.
24 s were not evaluated) with numerically based CTCAE definitions.
25 nd May, 2005, a questionnaire with 11 common CTCAE symptoms was given to consecutive outpatients and
26               In both groups the most common CTCAE grade 4 or higher toxic effects were pulmonary.
27 , their clinicians, and caregivers completed CTCAE-based measures before starting a treatment course
28 orded using the Common Terminology Criteria (CTCAE) v4.0.
29      Traditional reporting of toxicity data (CTCAE) has under-reported ototoxicity and minimized the
30                      Serious adverse events (CTCAE grade 4 or 5) occurred in 38 (38%) patients in the
31 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v2.0).
32 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v3) and EQ-5D-5L.
33 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and ASHA criteria was inadequate.
34 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) are used as standard practice in trials of cancer
35 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) during and following completion of chemotherapy a
36 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the mandated instrument for tracking patient t
37 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the predominant system for describing the seve
38 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0 and Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria
39 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 was compared between high- versus low-risk g
40 mmon Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03 grading schema.
41 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03 with modifications.
42 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5 for 22 commonly evaluated grade 3-4 adv
43 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5 GU toxicity grades for 50 PCa patients
44 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 and, when possible, the American Soci
45 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0.
46 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visit
47 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was utilized in 331 studies meeting inclusion cri
48 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), 170 (28%) of 604 patients had events after MHRT
49 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5, and its relationship with parenchyma-
50 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0.
51 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
52 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
53 Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
54 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
55 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
56 mon terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE).
57 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).RESULTSAmong patients on concurrent atorvastatin,
58 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE; v4.03) classification.
59 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] v3.0) was also collected at baseline and at the e
60 es (Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events [CTCAE] v4) and PROs (European Organization for Research
61 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] version 4.0) or an on-treatment serious adverse e
62 UC of 0.83 for IPSS and greater than 0.7 for CTCAE grades were achieved as early as week 1 of treatme
63                       Construct validity for CTCAE, DLQI, and Skindex was evaluated in 29 (65.9%), 3
64        For grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal CTCAE, 60 (10%) of 604 patients had an event after MHRT
65 antly more likely to experience higher-grade CTCAE- and FACT/GOG-NTX-13-reported neuropathy and longe
66 ntly greater risk of developing higher-grade CTCAE-reported OIPN during (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 9
67                      Nine subjects (21%) had CTCAE grade 3 or 4 neurological symptoms, with no neurot
68 n parenchymal dose (Gy) per step increase in CTCAE grade category was 5.75 (95% CI, 1.18-10.32).
69                  Secondary outcomes included CTCAE v4.03-based gastrointestinal toxic effects and Int
70  at baseline in 43.7% of patients, including CTCAE grade 1 renal impairment in 25.0% and CTCAE grade
71                         Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms
72 , grade 2 or greater sNT, as measured by NCI CTCAE (P = .038) and also by the oxaliplatin-specific sN
73 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE; version 3) criteria.
74 adverse events (AEs; graded according to NCI CTCAE v4.03) occurred in 0%, 23.5%, and 75.0% of patient
75 mplete cytoreduction and G3-5 morbidity (NCI-CTCAE v3).
76 Hematologic toxicity was evaluated using NCI-CTCAE and compared between groups at baseline and each m
77  severity of subsequent malignant neoplasms (CTCAE grade >=4 vs grade <4: odds ratio 2.15, 95% CI 1.1
78                                          New CTCAE grade 3 or higher clinical and laboratory toxicity
79                                           No CTCAE grade 3 or 4 nephrotoxicity was observed during or
80 scribed within the CTCAE were assigned a non-CTCAE descriptive classification.
81 xty-nine items provide information about non-CTCAE cancer-related issues and were categorized into se
82          Safety was assessed on the basis of CTCAE version 5.0.
83 em Library provides considerable coverage of CTCAE toxicities, along with other complementary issues
84                        The actuarial rate of CTCAE-free survival was not related to Koos grading (p =
85 ancestry showed 1.53- and 2.47-fold risks of CTCAE grade 2-4 and grade 3-4 cardiomyopathy than surviv
86 8 patients (99.3%) were matched to physician CTCAE assessments that were completed within 3 days of t
87 ompared using patient-reported outcome (PRO)-CTCAE and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gyneco
88                     Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1
89  variables included severity items of 24 PRO-CTCAE symptoms (range, 0-4; corresponding to none, mild,
90                                      All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected d
91 ian-rated CTCAE (45% v 29%; P = .02) and PRO-CTCAE (40% v 24%; P = .03).
92 n the intention-to-treat population, and PRO-CTCAE and OSDI vision-related functioning scores were an
93                               PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle.
94 d in the intent-to-treat population, and PRO-CTCAE results were analysed in the safety population (pa
95 nrolled patients, 706 completed baseline PRO-CTCAE and were included (mean [SD] age, 77.2 [5.5] years
96                     Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale chang
97  Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains.
98 52 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively.
99                       A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day af
100                           They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms
101 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT).
102 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) before starting a new cancer treatment regimen an
103 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Toler
104 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).
105 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).
106 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).
107 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).
108 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [PRO-CTCAE]), neurological and neurophysiological assessment
109                                       In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients rep
110 nded include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically w
111 ins and 45 codes were not covered by NCI PRO-CTCAE including vaginal stenosis and bowel urgency.
112 ires, and 21 domains and 44 codes in NCI PRO-CTCAE.
113 8, and National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PRO-CTCAE were selected for further analysis.
114 der way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.
115 re secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints,
116 aluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO
117 dity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients un
118                                    Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, it
119   Direct reporting by children using Ped-PRO-CTCAE or similar measures should be routinely incorporat
120 tx (d = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81) and the PRO-CTCAE (d = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02).
121 PN (convergent validity), especially the PRO-CTCAE composite score (r = 0.85; P < .001) and EORTC-CIP
122           In 623 patients with follow-up PRO-CTCAE data, compared with usual care, fewer patients in
123  weeks docetaxel arm by both physician-rated CTCAE (45% v 29%; P = .02) and PRO-CTCAE (40% v 24%; P =
124                                          The CTCAE version 4.0 definitions of grade of severity for n
125 g both our proposed grading criteria and the CTCAE criteria.
126 ient or permanent symptoms classified by the CTCAE.
127 er reliability, or measurement error for the CTCAE, DLQI, or Skindex.
128  version that used language adapted from the CTCAE for patient self-reporting.
129 cribed in EORTC items but not located in the CTCAE were coded as missing symptoms.
130 ies described 44 property assessments of the CTCAE, DLQI, and Skindex.
131  assessed for 1 DAE-related component of the CTCAE.
132  essential for trials because relying on the CTCAE to detect adverse events may miss important sympto
133                                    Using the CTCAE clinical framework to classify symptomatic PRO ite
134 emotherapy-related adverse effects using the CTCAE system is high in women undergoing adjuvant chemot
135 to create a standardized framework using the CTCAE to systematically classify symptomatic AEs from th
136  the Chang scale was more specific, with the CTCAE scale diverging from clinical recommendation at hi
137 m Library items were searched for within the CTCAE (v5.0) and linked to an AE if they were described
138 ymptom EORTC items, not described within the CTCAE were assigned a non-CTCAE descriptive classificati
139 verse skin reactions classified according to CTCAE version as G1 (minimal skin changes, faint erythem
140 , and one patient (3%) had grade 4 toxicity (CTCAE v5.0).
141 nts included PSA response (PCWG2), toxicity (CTCAE v4.03), imaging response, patient-reported health-
142 d feasibility, metabolic response, toxicity (CTCAE), local progression-free survival (LPFS) and patie
143 ific and more sensitive than the traditional CTCAE criteria for identifying clinically significant ot
144 RANO assessment, and toxicities graded using CTCAE v5.0.
145 malignancy [n=1]; deaths not classified with CTCAE terms: disease progression [n=3], sudden death [n=
146                                Compared with CTCAE, SIOP detected significantly more ototoxicity ( P
147  whereas the poorest agreement occurred with CTCAE.

 
Page Top