ライフサイエンスコーパス: evaluation criteria

1 Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

2 Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.

3 HOP-14) under standardized treatment and PET evaluation criteria.

4 xistence in wild house mice using a panel of evaluation criteria.

5 two experienced reviewers with use of eight evaluation criteria.

6 rediction quality improved in terms of CAPRI evaluation criteria.

7 P_score, are proposed for each KO as the EG evaluation criteria.

8 Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

9 Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria.

10 ion of this approach relies on specific data evaluation criteria addressing (1) the quality of the ma

11 ecommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and present their consensus treatmen

12 ecommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and treatment recommendations.

13 We present such data evaluation criteria and use a novel approach to establis

14 effects), best overall response by Response Evaluation Criteria, and antidrug antibody formation.

15 Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, and consider separate language for

16 ostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation criteria, and the PSMA Reporting and Data Sys

17 ecommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consen

18 ta and time-to-event data and differences in evaluation criteria between studies could have introduce

19 ications using four quantitative statistical evaluation criteria: detection capability, biological as

20 Important evaluation criteria for each technology include maturity

21 s such as tumor response defined by Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST).

22 Resolution estimation is the main evaluation criteria for the reconstruction of macromolec

23 ity in the gene co-expression network as the evaluation criteria for variable selection.

24 According to evaluation criteria from IARC and the Institute of Medic

25 The response evaluation criteria in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (H

26 ts with RAI-refractory disease with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) measurable d

27 d from imaging data (0.73), and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (0.71).

28 ase according to the immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST), and had

29 Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria w

30 ective response (OR) rate (Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria)

31 ate the reproducibility of Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) in hepatoc

32 acy was evaluated by using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) on cross-s

33 was assessed according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST).

34 a in Solid Tumors (PERCIST 1.0) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

35 se was evaluated in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

36 nce or progression as determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1)

37 survival (PFS) assessed by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (target haz

38 Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensi

39 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensi

40 The primary efficacy end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -assessed p

41 The primary end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -defined ob

42 > 80% local control (LC) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 criteri

43 ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 was 13.

44 treatment with CT scan by means of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 and Imm

45 rget lesions were selected by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 guideli

46 Response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, other

47 ndividual and a patient basis using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1.

48 revealed 1 partial response by the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) and 2 confi

49 tissue sites will be assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and iodine-

50 r response at 6 months according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modifie

51 ime to progression according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and surviva

52 Objective response rates by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and surviva

53 , determined by independent central Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) assessments

54 Response was assessed by CT Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) at 12 wk.

55 (40%; 95% CI, 26% to 55%) achieved Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) complete or

56 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) confirmed r

57 decline, with objective response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, a

58 response at 12 weeks determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria.

59 erapy and had measurable lesions by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria.

60 29 evaluable patients, only 31% met Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) for measura

61 Response was assessed both by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines

62 erlotinib was assessed by using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) on CT image

63 tion, had measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or bone les

64 and measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or elevated

65 rs in three dimensions, whereas the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) require mea

66 nt better than standard dimensional Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) response.

67 patients (27%); CT evaluation using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) showed resp

68 s that are based on the categorical Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) system.

69 nse was assessed every 12 weeks per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 by ind

70 eath receptor 1) monotherapy beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1-define

71 sponses were assessed centrally per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1.

72 disease as defined in the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0

73 Tumor response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

74 measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

75 us of 0 or 1, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

76 mor response was assessed according Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

77 ta warehouse assembled to guide the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

78 th measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

79 target lesion selection with use of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

80 Primary end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

81 nt or even conflicting results with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

82 int was objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

83 le or evaluable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

84 urable or non-measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

85 ssessed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

86 investigator assessment as per the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

87 If at least one Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was observe

88 Stable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), >/= 4 mont

89 ria by reviewing previous criteria, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and emergi

90 th Organization (WHO) criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST

91 COG) criteria, one-dimensional (1D) Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and two-di

92 sessment was also obtained by using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST), as well as

93 Organization (WHO) criteria or the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), but these

94 Tumor response rates according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified R

95 an World Health Organization (WHO), Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified R

96 sed tumor responses with the use of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), physical e

97 tumor molecular status, response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), positron e

98 radiologic review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.

99 the investigator according to both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.

100 by local radiologists according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.

101 sed to evaluate tumor response, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), were devel

102 from continued immunotherapy beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined fir

103 ogression was identified by CT with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

104 ia and tumour responses ascribed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

105 e was defined by version 1.0 of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

106 d to our current assessment method, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

107 ical responses were evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

108 as to evaluate the response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

109 nd clinical outcome was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

110 umor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

111 of the study was tumor response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

112 artial response [PR]) in the CNS by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

113 raphy (CT) scan every 6 weeks using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

114 end point, was assessed by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

115 ze alone, which is reflected in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

116 and measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

117 le lesion by CT or MRI according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST); Eastern Co

118 rally reviewed overall response per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1

119 sponse rate (ORR) assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1

120 iteria for progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; >/= 20% inc

121 therapy, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1

122 ed on investigator review using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1

123 y local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in all

124 y local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in the

125 erations, measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1), and a

126 objective response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1), as as

127 -assessed objective response as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1).

128 if they had progression defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1); those

129 y tumour response, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0.

130 independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention

131 meters were determined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 on CT (3 monthly

132 objective response (as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1), a decrease in

133 olid tumors by means of CT imaging (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1).

134 On the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1, 38% of these pa

135 for tumor response by using RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1, original Choi c

136 0%) had stable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1.

137 rate, time-to-progression (modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [mRECIST]), radiolog

138 points included response rate (via Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] or modified

139 I; systemic progression of disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] or WHO) whi

140 confirmed objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1

141 measurable or evaluable disease (by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1

142 Adverse events, tumor response (via Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1

143 ty and overall response (defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1

144 unselected young TILs (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]), and seven

145 ve measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], version 1.

146 ers and nonresponders were based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and CA-125 criteria.

147 ors then summarize the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and World Health Org

148 onse was assessed by using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors at 6 weeks and 6-12

149 rtial or complete response based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors categories (n = 33)

150 t algorithms used for HCC (modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors classification, Euro

151 We used Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (version 1.

152 We used Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (version 1.

153 dified World Health Organization or Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors criteria and safety

154 ilan criteria, tumor response using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, findings a

155 Primary end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors defined response.

156 Response was defined using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors for cutaneous diseas

157 s evaluated every 2 cycles by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group criteria.

158 with a disease control rate of 95% (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group)/100% (Europea

159 progression at 6 months, defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group, Prostate Canc

160 mor response was evaluated by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines, and surv

161 sion-free survival according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines.

162 pared with that according to RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or original Choi cri

163 points were CR rate (as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.0) and overall su

164 a, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1), Eastern Coope

165 end points: overall response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1, central review

166 ctive tumor response as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0, biochem

167 response rate (ORR) as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0.

168 nfirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (central

169 sation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

170 us histology, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

171 at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

172 or 1, measurable disease defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

173 tatus 0 or 1, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

174 n-free survival (PFS) determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

175 ints assessed clinical activity per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and immu

176 essed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and over

177 te or partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed

178 ed progressive disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 based on

179 o independent central review as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 for radi

180 assessed by the investigator using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in patie

181 ponse rate, which was determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the i

182 an objective response, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the r

183 is being considered uncommon in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 literatu

184 te or partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) and dur

185 d disease progression (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) before

186 phase and objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1) for the

187 nib and recent disease progression (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1).

188 progression-free survival rate (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1); explor

189 gression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, analyse

190 ss, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, and ade

191 measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and an

192 measurable lesion according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, and had

193 s, measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and nor

194 ession-free survival, determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, interve

195 assessed every 12 weeks by central Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

196 te response or partial response per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1.

197 ed every 8 weeks in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

198 essed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

199 gression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

200 f therapy, and evaluable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

201 endent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

202 d a measurable lesion as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

203 s of 0-1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

204 Best response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was complete respons

205 tomic tumor response as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was investigated for

206 Response according to RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was not significantl

207 Objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was the primary end

208 1 month after PVE were measured and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were applied to asse

209 Three RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) -defined partial re

210 Using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) 1.0 criteria, three

211 Response was assessed using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and an exploratory

212 al response (ie, 32.5% reduction by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and withdrew from t

213 tus), and response to chemotherapy (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) as independent pred

214 e best objective response rate (RR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) by intention to tre

215 A RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) response rate (RR)

216 itional end points included RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) response, pharmacod

217 30% and > or = 90%; rate of RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) responses and durat

218 s response according to RECIST 1.0 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) using multiphase co

219 cles, that is, 18 weeks, by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) version 1.1.

220 was 5.6, 6.0, and 6.7 months; ORRs (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were 2.7%, 7.6% and

221 Response data (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were extracted and

222 Tumor assessments (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were performed ever

223 Radiologic (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors), biochemical, and s

224 best response according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), there was a trend

225 e (PD) of irradiated HCC by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

226 were evaluated according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

227 was objective response status (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

228 sessed every 2 months using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

229 onse rate (ORR), defined by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

230 By Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, 27/76 (35.5%) patie

231 Disease response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and adverse events

232 response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and FDG-PET respons

233 r older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern

234 According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, of the 28 patients

235 f objective progression occurred by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, patients on the sta

236 y CT images were evaluated by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the Choi criteria,

237 sease progression (according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.0) or dea

238 able patients per protocol using Response to Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.0.

239 elated response criteria (irRC) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST

240 e to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST

241 ed measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 [RECIST

242 ign was used to distinguish between Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 objecti

243 Overall tumor response rate (by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) by ind

244 d point was clinical benefit (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) prior

245 r response at 6-month follow-up CT (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) were a

246 jective response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), which

247 expression status according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, as ass

248 r stable disease according to local Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, assess

249 point was overall response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, by inv

250 endpoint was response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in the

251 an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or as

252 onse rate measured according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

253 independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

254 bjective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

255 ed independent central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

256 or evolution was evaluated by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

257 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

258 nt sunitinib dosing continued until Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease prog

259 response was evaluated by CT using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.

260 e disease) was 94% according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors.

261 acy was tumor response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

262 as classified according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

263 nced MRI and CT on the basis of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

264 and tumour response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.

265 ponse was determined at 3 months by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.

266 old of >or= 20% activity defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

267 s had partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

268 ogression and response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

269 relevant than clinical response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

270 verall response rate as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

271 for objective clinical response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

272 urvival (PFS), and best response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

273 s by computed tomography scan using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

274 nt central review by using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

275 TACE response was based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

276 determine response rate defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; other end points in

277 Clinical activity (by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors]), survival, and saf

278 bjective tumor response (by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors]).

279 rking group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1

280 ponders and non-responders based on Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) criteria.

281 an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.

282 omplete or partial response) as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) by in

283 pulation were investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-fre

284 titumour activity (best response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST]) in evalua

285 is drug in unselected patients, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours are suboptimum to p

286 r each tumour type according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 or the

287 r types, responses (as evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1) were

288 Evaluation criteria included the detection of small chan

289 sed study using a text highlighting task and evaluation criteria of Human-Computer Interaction.

290 the clustering results, the external cluster evaluation criteria of the Rand index of the HCA dendrog

291 ality assessment in terms of all of the four evaluation criteria officially used by CASP, which measu

292 establish standard imaging protocols and OCT evaluation criteria showed that areas of higher scatteri

293 developed methodologies by using as the key evaluation criteria the efficiency of the reaction and g

294 Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria to appraise quality of evidence.

295 establish a common set of benchmark data and evaluation criteria to provide a comparative assessment.

296 ecommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, we characterized the quality of evi

297 The main evaluation criteria were adverse events (Common Terminol

298 Secondary evaluation criteria were comparison at baseline and at l

299 The secondary evaluation criteria were the rate of device revisions an

300 studies with uniform sets of basic entry and evaluation criteria with survival as a primary endpoint.