コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)
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 motherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy).
2 lantation in patients with a response to the chemoimmunotherapy).
3 who received at least two lines of previous chemoimmunotherapy.
4 studied before and after 2 cycles (6 wk) of chemoimmunotherapy.
5 be able to receive anthracycline-containing chemoimmunotherapy.
6 s alemtuzumab or ibrutinib) seem better than chemoimmunotherapy.
7 n a PFS less than 36 months after first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
8 5 years, despite a low CMR rate (47%) after chemoimmunotherapy.
9 l (PFS <36 months) after previous first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
10 e additional treatment modality used, mainly chemoimmunotherapy.
11 itors, thereby opening new opportunities for chemoimmunotherapy.
12 phoma (FL) patients after a brief first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
13 received prior fludarabine-based therapy or chemoimmunotherapy.
14 ajority are instead observed or treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
15 cy with a median survival of 3 years despite chemoimmunotherapy.
16 orubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) chemoimmunotherapy.
17 n of conventional chemotherapy but not after chemoimmunotherapy.
18 ism contributing to the efficacy of combined chemoimmunotherapy.
19 n=727) of patients treated with ibrutinib or chemoimmunotherapy.
20 0 engagement represents a novel and rational chemoimmunotherapy.
21 on has not been examined in CLL trials using chemoimmunotherapy.
22 ore be useful in predicting poor response to chemoimmunotherapy.
23 q), appear to have a shorter PFS and OS with chemoimmunotherapy.
24 examined relative to treatment outcome with chemoimmunotherapy.
25 reatment with chemotherapy to treatment with chemoimmunotherapy.
26 oxicities were greater in patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy.
27 LBCLs) with inferior outcomes after standard chemoimmunotherapy.
28 , demonstrated better clinical outcomes with chemoimmunotherapy.
29 -agent ICI, and not in patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
30 ikely to achieve durable remissions with FCR chemoimmunotherapy.
31 type that is currently treated by intensive chemoimmunotherapy.
32 ancer patients refractory to chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy.
33 d with single-agent ICI, but not combination chemoimmunotherapy.
34 mains largely insufficient with conventional chemoimmunotherapy.
35 ) has poor outcomes with standard first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
36 ticipation of a good response to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.
37 e, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemoimmunotherapy.
38 value of adjuvant immunotherapy after prior chemoimmunotherapy.
39 s, thereby facilitating enhanced sonodynamic chemoimmunotherapy.
40 and highlights the potential of combination chemoimmunotherapy.
41 se overall survival in patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
42 atients with LUAD(Muc) had worse outcomes to chemoimmunotherapy.
43 tcomes of patients treated with ibrutinib or chemoimmunotherapy.
44 ed with poor survival outcomes with standard chemoimmunotherapy.
45 lymphoma after at least one previous line of chemoimmunotherapy.
46 (ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax) and chemoimmunotherapy.
47 oduced as another option over fixed-duration chemoimmunotherapy.
48 ubstantially benefit from treatment with FCR chemoimmunotherapy.
49 GBL-DH/TH) has a poor outcome after standard chemoimmunotherapy.
50 associated with poor outcomes after standard chemoimmunotherapy.
51 t rituximab and may become an alternative to chemoimmunotherapy.
52 olidation after high-dose-methotrexate-based chemoimmunotherapy.
53 fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab (FCR) chemoimmunotherapy.
54 leukaemia with poor outcome after first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
55 2 (range, 1-9), and 63% received >/=1 prior chemoimmunotherapy.
56 isk factors associated with poor response to chemoimmunotherapy.
57 aemia have poor responses and survival after chemoimmunotherapy.
58 n of disease (POD) within 2 years of initial chemoimmunotherapy.
59 tation have lower response rates to standard chemoimmunotherapy.
60 with TP53 mutations have lower responses to chemoimmunotherapy.
61 and grade 4 infections were more common with chemoimmunotherapy (18.5%) and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-i
62 kaemia with active disease, who responded to chemoimmunotherapy 2-5 months after completion of first-
63 o one of the four treatment regimens (229 to chemoimmunotherapy, 237 to venetoclax-rituximab, 229 to
65 ee survival favored ibrutinib-rituximab over chemoimmunotherapy (89.4% vs. 72.9% at 3 years; hazard r
66 ted in better progression-free survival than chemoimmunotherapy (90.7% vs. 62.5% at 3 years; hazard r
67 rvival also favored ibrutinib-rituximab over chemoimmunotherapy (98.8% vs. 91.5% at 3 years; hazard r
68 with DLBCL are not cured by current standard chemoimmunotherapy, a better understanding of the molecu
71 receiving platinum/pemetrexed/pembrolizumab chemoimmunotherapy also had adjusted survival similar to
74 patients with cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and applied single-cell RNA as well a
75 with 17p13.1 deletion have poor response to chemoimmunotherapy and are treated differently, with som
76 2023, for all clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy that included at lea
77 a poor prognosis when treated with standard chemoimmunotherapy and have increased risk of central ne
78 ment or retreatment with targeted therapy or chemoimmunotherapy and have limited subsequent treatment
80 n of venetoclax-obinutuzumab versus standard chemoimmunotherapy and investigator-assessed progression
81 cristine, dexamethasone (VcR-CVAD) induction chemoimmunotherapy and maintenance rituximab (MR) were e
82 depends on long-term outcomes compared with chemoimmunotherapy and stem-cell transplantation, which
83 n=242) of patients treated with ibrutinib or chemoimmunotherapy and three external-validation dataset
84 rably at 6 to 8 weeks, after chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy, and 8 to 12 weeks after radiation or
85 tients with EGFR-mutant tumors, preoperative chemoimmunotherapy, and adjuvant immunotherapy could imp
86 a, had received at least three cycles of FCR chemoimmunotherapy, and had been treated between Oct 10,
87 rvival with targeted therapies compared with chemoimmunotherapy, and thereby the role of chemoimmunot
88 rine analogs, short response [<24 months] to chemoimmunotherapy, and/or presence of del[17p]/TP53 mut
93 (MRD) at the end of induction treatment with chemoimmunotherapy as a surrogate end point for progress
95 were analyzed, of whom 487 (27.2%) received chemoimmunotherapy at DFBCC (DFBCC-CIO), 825 (46.1%) rec
96 inum-based doublet chemotherapy) or adjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (atezolizumab or pembrolizumab with o
99 n this review, we highlight the evolution of chemoimmunotherapy-based treatment approaches in the man
101 oclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib versus standard chemoimmunotherapy, both analysed in the intention-to-tr
102 ) have been useful in predicting response to chemoimmunotherapy but are less predictive of response t
103 on-free survival (PFS) in patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy but not in those treated with chemoth
104 onic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but are less well studied with novel
105 exhibits high remission rates after initial chemoimmunotherapy, but with relapses with treatment, re
107 lymphoma/leukemia (BL) patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy can be verified outside published ser
108 volving management of CLL from 2011 to 2025: chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as the standard of care before
109 advancement of 1L management: optimizing the chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) backbone, adding targeted agent
111 Bruton tyrosine kinase, were evaluated with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in a multicenter phase 1b study
113 lapse, but their effectiveness compared with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in late-POD patients remains un
114 est toxicity, indicating suitability of this chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) platform for combination with i
115 ree survival can be achieved with first-line chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), such as combined fludarabine,
116 onic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treated with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), whereas their prognostic impac
119 Additionally, ongoing trials evaluating chemoimmunotherapy combinations adapted from the neoadju
122 nefit in event-free survival for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy compared with chemotherapy (hazard ra
123 LL) with wild-type TP53; however, due to the chemoimmunotherapy control arm, AMPLIFY excluded patient
126 0.59-0.81, log-rank p<0.0001; venetoclax or chemoimmunotherapy: CS =0.76, 0.66-0.85, log-rank p=0.01
127 e external-validation cohorts (idelalisib or chemoimmunotherapy: CS=0.71, 0.59-0.81, log-rank p<0.000
129 esponses (PRs) or better after the first two chemoimmunotherapy cycles occurred in 42 of 63 evaluable
130 oimmunotherapy dataset, n=897; venetoclax or chemoimmunotherapy dataset, n=389; and the MCCD [includi
131 external-validation datasets (idelalisib or chemoimmunotherapy dataset, n=897; venetoclax or chemoim
132 e demonstrate the benefits of a locoregional chemoimmunotherapy delivery system, a novel thermosensit
135 fraction of patients treated first line with chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and r
136 ve TP53 aberrations to receive six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituxim
137 compared with standard of care (SOC) salvage chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous stem cell tran
138 cel or standard care (two to three cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy wi
139 ell therapy) or standard care (2-3 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy wi
141 s of investigator-selected, protocol-defined chemoimmunotherapy, followed by high-dose chemotherapy w
145 se of MATRix combination as the new standard chemoimmunotherapy for patients aged up to 70 years with
147 versy concerning the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for patients with NSCLC with programm
148 ents received donor lymphocyte infusions +/- chemoimmunotherapy for relapse, and five patients obtain
150 ntitumour activity and safety of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC.
151 to the inclusion of anthracycline in upfront chemoimmunotherapy for these elderly patients and highli
153 long-term remission following front-line FCR chemoimmunotherapy from those who might benefit from alt
154 (92.2%; 97.5% CI, 87.3 to 95.7) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%; 97.5% CI, 44.4 to 59.5;
155 he chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7.9 months [95% CI 7.1-8.8] vs
156 CI 0.97-1.48, p=0.05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8.4 months [95% CI 7.3-9.7], H
157 progression-free survival than those in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47 [97.5%
158 e ibrutinib-rituximab group and 88.0% in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression o
159 gator occurred in three (1%) patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group (n=1 due to each of sepsis, met
160 and 926 were randomly assigned to treatment (chemoimmunotherapy group n=229; venetoclax-rituximab gro
165 herapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in
166 he chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chem
167 emotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent
168 emotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent
169 y group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the c
170 oup, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemot
176 eted therapies showed enhanced outcomes over chemoimmunotherapy, highlighting their effectiveness acr
177 ogression-free survival following front-line chemoimmunotherapy; however, in the relapsed/refractory
178 val across treatment regimens (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, immunotherapy) without unexpected ad
179 rituximab to standard chemotherapy regimens (chemoimmunotherapy) improves both response rates and sur
181 tested against acalabrutinib-venetoclax and chemoimmunotherapy in an ongoing phase 3 study (NCT03836
185 ion-free survival with targeted therapy over chemoimmunotherapy in first-line and treatment of relaps
189 therapies after high-dose methotrexate-based chemoimmunotherapy in patients aged 70 years or younger
190 ied end-of-induction (EOI) PET after initial chemoimmunotherapy in patients with a high tumor burden
191 nase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib, with classic chemoimmunotherapy in patients with chronic lymphocytic
192 ts a potential option as consolidation after chemoimmunotherapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell
193 and progression-free survival compared with chemoimmunotherapy in patients with previously untreated
194 nd when incorporated into standard frontline chemoimmunotherapy in place of Dox, it improved overall
197 For locally advanced stage III lung cancers, chemoimmunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting can achiev
199 -M after FCR argues for the continued use of chemoimmunotherapy in this patient subgroup outside clin
200 chemoimmunotherapy, and thereby the role of chemoimmunotherapy in todays' era for treatment of CLL i
201 as consolidation after front-line induction chemoimmunotherapy in untreated elderly patients with di
202 ss common with ibrutinib-rituximab than with chemoimmunotherapy (in 37 patients [10.5%] vs. 32 [20.3%
203 cantly prolong progression-free survival (vs chemoimmunotherapy) in patients with previously untreate
206 , had received at least one previous line of chemoimmunotherapy, including an anti-CD20 agent, and we
208 e long-progression-free survival (PFS) after chemoimmunotherapy is essential given the availability o
213 HBV infection and suggest that such combined chemoimmunotherapy may be useful for treatment of humans
214 on treatment failure from large trials using chemoimmunotherapy may help to define risk groups in CLL
216 ical behavior similar to CD49d+ CLL, both in chemoimmunotherapy (n = 1522) and in ibrutinib (n = 158)
217 fferences in targeted therapies (n = 812) vs chemoimmunotherapy (n = 812) across all risk groups and
220 Included patients were receiving neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab with plat
221 These data show a novel strategy of combined chemoimmunotherapy of cancer targeting a CTA induced de
224 not be eligible for full-intensity frontline chemoimmunotherapy or have comorbidities that limit stan
225 3.0-74.0] years; 441 males [48.5%]) received chemoimmunotherapy or immunotherapy alone in the adjuvan
226 arge B-cell lymphomas that are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy or relapsing after second-line therap
227 reatment naive (declined or not eligible for chemoimmunotherapy) or relapsed or refractory (at least
228 motherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1
231 may achieve a complete response to frontline chemoimmunotherapy, patients with relapsed/refractory di
235 denocarcinoma (mPDAC) for patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy ("PRINCE", NCT03214250), and an indep
239 free survival over obinutuzumab-chlorambucil chemoimmunotherapy, providing a chemotherapy-free treatm
240 and with rituximab plus high-dose sequential chemoimmunotherapy (R-HDS) in relapsed aggressive lympho
241 ive ALL did not benefit from rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (rates of CRD 45% v 50%, P = NS and O
242 mphoma (FL) with early relapse after initial chemoimmunotherapy, refractory disease, or histologic tr
243 that were superior to those with a standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen among patients 70 years of ag
244 d rituximab (FCR) has become a gold-standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen for patients with chronic lym
245 ions, each therapy was compared with salvage chemoimmunotherapy regimens and stem-cell transplantatio
246 s often replacing highly intensive and toxic chemoimmunotherapy regimens as the standard of care.
250 gues, monoclonal antibodies, and combination chemoimmunotherapy regimens) have dramatically improved
251 ange of treatment options, including several chemoimmunotherapy regimens, phosphoinositide 3-kinase i
252 atients are eligible for aggressive up-front chemoimmunotherapy regimens, so what is the optimal trea
256 P53 aberrations respond poorly to first-line chemoimmunotherapy, resulting in early relapse and short
258 patients achieved a complete remission after chemoimmunotherapy, seven of whom were MRD negative.
259 is in these conditions and suggest effective chemoimmunotherapy strategies using this new generation
260 roved tumor shrinkage rates with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy suggest the possibility that criteria
261 y of these diseases with the introduction of chemoimmunotherapy that may finally result in improvemen
262 yet universal approach termed "chemocentric chemoimmunotherapy" that has potential application in th
264 ded approach to therapy, including choice of chemoimmunotherapy, the role of stem-cell transplantatio
266 ggest that studies comparing venetoclax with chemoimmunotherapy to chemoimmunotherapy alone are warra
267 psed no more than 12 months after first-line chemoimmunotherapy to receive axicabtagene ciloleucel (a
270 We report the long-term follow-up of the chemoimmunotherapy trial CALGB 9712 from the Cancer and
272 randomized chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and chemoimmunotherapy trials demonstrates that CR30 is a su
276 POT1 as novel determinants of outcome after chemoimmunotherapy using chlorambucil and anti-CD20 trea
277 t stage, and regional study group, to either chemoimmunotherapy, venetoclax-rituximab, venetoclax-obi
279 predictive factor for all three end points; chemoimmunotherapy was the superior treatment regimen.
280 he combination of selinexor with second-line chemoimmunotherapy was tolerated with early indication o
282 patients who received fludarabine-containing chemoimmunotherapy were analysed by mass spectrometry (S
283 hin 12 months of or refractory to first-line chemoimmunotherapy were randomized 1:1 to axicabtagene c
284 onse after four or more cycles of first-line chemoimmunotherapy, were eligible if they had high minim
285 treated with curative-intent anti-CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy, were included in this international,
286 who are unlikely to respond to conventional chemoimmunotherapy; where possible, these patients shoul
287 ximab and in 126 of 158 [79.7%] who received chemoimmunotherapy), whereas infectious complications of
291 tomatic, untreated CLL patients who received chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine and rituximab as par
292 spite promising results with targeted drugs, chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide (F
294 rutinib-rituximab, as compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, a
296 until disease progression, or six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, a
298 3.0-74.0] years; 225 males [53.1%]) received chemoimmunotherapy with platinum-based doublet in the ne
300 The efficacy, toxicity, and tolerability of chemoimmunotherapy with the combination of fludarabine,