ライフサイエンスコーパス: objective response rate

1 luded overall survival, PFS by HA level, and objective response rate.

2 free survival, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate.

3 Primary outcome was objective response rate.

4 econdary endpoints were overall survival and objective response rate.

5 nd points included overall survival (OS) and objective response rate.

6 The primary end point was objective response rate.

7 d in combination with WBRT, with a favorable objective response rate.

8 end point of this trial was to evaluate the objective response rate.

9 h cohort had a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate.

10 docrine tumors (NETs) demonstrates a limited objective response rate.

11 ating T cells contributing to differences in objective response rates.

12 ry end points of the study were complete and objective response rates.

13 mplete response and seven partial responses (objective response rate 19%, 95% CI 9-34).

14 GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and pr

15 al (25.8 nu 25.5 months; HR, 1.0; P = .6) or objective response rate (27.0% nu 27.4%) with temsirolim

16 associated with a significant improvement in objective response rate (31% vs 0%; P = .04) but not cli

17 cutaneous metastases studied and had similar objective response rates (54.5% [95% CI, 48.3% to 60.7%]

18 Responses: pCR rate, 49%; objective response rate, 61% (24 complete and six partia

19 -deficient colorectal cancer (immune-related objective response rate, 71% [5 of 7 patients]; immune-r

20 The objective response rate (78.5% v 57.4%; P < .0001) and D

21 Three women achieved a partial response (CNS objective response rate, 8%; 95% CI, 2% to 22%).

22 ismodegib, with an objective response in 23 (objective response rate, 85%; CR rate, 37%; partial resp

23 with 1 complete and 2 partial responses (18% objective response rate; 90% confidence interval, 5%-40%

24 y higher in the presence of PIK3CA mutation (objective response rate, 93% v 63% in PIK3CA wild type;

25 At the end of therapy, the objective response rate (95% CI) per independent radiolo

26 to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective response rate according to immune-modified REC

27 ere the independent review facility-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the

28 The primary end point was the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation

29 The end points included safety; the objective response rate (according to Response Evaluatio

30 The objective-response rate (according to modified World Hea

31 espond to immunotherapy remains modest (~15% objective response rate across indications), as tumours

32 In this study, we evaluate objective response rate after therapy with the gamma-sec

33 eribulin achieved an independently reviewed objective response rate (all partial responses [PRs]) of

34 hase 2 trial of selumetinib to determine the objective response rate among patients with plexiform ne

35 The objective response rate among the 25 patients with at le

36 twice daily or the HBr form at any dose, the objective response rate among the 46 patients with T790M

37 Secondary objectives included objective response rate and 24-week progression-free sur

38 The immune-related objective response rate and immune-related progression-f

39 15, 2013, for progression-free survival and objective response rate and March 5, 2014, for overall s

40 Efficacy end points included objective response rate and modified progression-free su

41 monstrates antitumor activity as measured by objective response rate and PFS and is well tolerated in

42 Objective response rate and progression-free survival pe

43 Secondary end points included objective response rate and progression-free survival.

44 coprimary end points were the immune-related objective response rate and the 20-week immune-related p

45 also observed with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression

46 s showed a good safety profile and promising objective response rate and time to progression when use

47 ter the first cycle had significantly higher objective response rates and longer progression-free and

48 ainst cancer, challenges associated with low objective response rates and severe systemic side effect

49 The objective-response rate and the progression-free surviva

50 on-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate, and duration of response-as wel

51 treatment Odds Ratios (ORs) for the outcome objective response rate, and number of Serious Adverse E

52 End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS).

53 on-free survival, clinical benefit response, objective response rate, and safety.

54 on-free survival (assessed by investigator), objective response rate, and safety.

55 urvival as assessed by the investigator, the objective response rate, and safety.

56 points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and safety.

57 ng patients with brain metastases, confirmed objective response rate, and safety.

58 y end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety.

59 n-free survival (investigator-assessed), the objective response rate, and the time to symptom progres

60 y end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and toxicity.

61 e primary end point of the study was overall objective response rate as assessed by independent centr

62 ither margetuximab or pembrolizumab) and the objective response rate as assessed by the investigator

63 s were 6-month progression-free survival and objective response rate, as determined by independent ra

64 se events, dose-limiting toxicities, and the objective response rate (assessed per Lugano criteria);

65 Primary end points were objective response rate at 12 weeks and progression-free

66 The objective response rate at 12 weeks was 5%, with stable

67 The objective response rate at the end of treatment was 39%

68 endpoint was the 39-patient primary cohort's objective response rate at week 15 (ORR(W15)).

69 cohort expansion, the primary objective was objective response rate at week 24 (ORR(week 24)) at the

70 The primary endpoint was objective response rate based on the 2007 International

71 y of cancer patients, so how to increase the objective response rate becomes an urgent challenge.

72 The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (best overall response of comple

73 logous tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), objective response rates between 49% and 72% were seen.

74 ts of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterior

75 Secondary end points were objective response rate by immune-related response crite

76 /= 12 months among 112 treated patients, the objective response rate by independent assessment was 25

77 The confirmed objective response rate by independent central review wa

78 Objective response rate by modified WHO criteria was 42%

79 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate by RECIST in cohort one.

80 The primary end point was objective response rate by RECIST v1.0; secondary end po

81 The random-effects weighted average objective response rate (complete and partial responses,

82 In melanoma patients, objective response rate [complete and partial response (

83 ent of safety; secondary end points included objective response rate, complete remission (CR) rate, p

84 Objective response rate (confirmed) of 11.3% (n = 16/142

85 The objective response rates did not seem to be affected by

86 overall survival (OS), 1-year survival rate, objective response rate, duration of objective response,

87 l (PFS) by RECIST; secondary end points were objective response rate, duration of response (DOR), ove

88 Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safet

89 ondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, effects o

90 t differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver

91 The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per i

92 lted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecified immune cel

93 Objective response rate for ridaforolimus versus compara

94 Objective response rates for arms A, B, and C were 37%,

95 ction rate was 95.28%, and predicted overall objective response rates for group data in 66 of 67 drug

96 Objective response rates for nivolumab 10 mg/kg plus gem

97 Objective response rates for pazopanib and doxorubicin w

98 all survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate, however this improvement should

99 Objective response rate in 50 evaluable patients was 60%

100 Primary endpoints were confirmed objective response rate in all patients who received the

101 roposed as the major contributor to the high objective response rate in anti-PD-1 therapy.

102 The primary end points were safety and objective response rate in KEYNOTE-013 and objective res

103 d objective response rate in KEYNOTE-013 and objective response rate in KEYNOTE-170.

104 rate gemcitabine and docetaxel achieved high objective response rates in three prospective phase II s

105 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate measured according to the Respon

106 Despite promising objective response rates, most patients relapse, and low

107 The objective response rate of 19% in stratum 2 suggests tha

108 Among 47 evaluable patients, an objective response rate of 32% was observed, including 1

109 dministration was associated with an overall objective response rate of 33%, 12-month progression-fre

110 or fewer prior lines of therapy (n = 23), an objective response rate of 39%, PFS of 6.7 months, and d

111 all cell lung cancer resulted in a confirmed objective response rate of 42% in the first 12 evaluable

112 l responses were observed, which provided an objective response rate of 52%.

113 Merkel-cell carcinoma was associated with an objective response rate of 56%.

114 e of PD-L1 induced durable tumor regression (objective response rate of 6 to 17%) and prolonged stabi

115 n these very heavily pretreated patients, an objective response rate of 60%, including 22% complete r

116 vanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC), with an objective response rate of 65%, including a 32% complete

117 l treated patients (n = 61) was 61%, with an objective response rate of 82%.

118 of AFM13 with pembrolizumab demonstrated an objective response rate of 88% at the highest treatment

119 uation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 objective response rates of 20% versus 50%.

120 hs) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 23.3% (95% CI, 14.8% to 33.6

121 hs) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 37.1% (95% CI, 21.5% to 55.1

122 nts with metastatic melanoma, who have shown objective response rates of 70% to 80%.

123 Treatment at the MTD yielded objective response rates of 87%, 74%, and 20% for relaps

124 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST (versi

125 assess safety; secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR) and 24-week progression-fr

126 The objective response rate (ORR) and CBR were 3.4% and 10.3

127 Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survi

128 Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survi

129 Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and safety.

130 ree survival (PFS), and odds ratios (OR) for objective response rate (ORR) and serious adverse events

131 The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by Response Ev

132 Primary end points included safety, the objective response rate (ORR) at 16 weeks, and the perce

133 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks (ORR(Wk24)); s

134 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) based on investigator asse

135 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST (version 1.0).

136 The primary end point was the overall objective response rate (ORR) determined by an independe

137 The objective response rate (ORR) for G-B was 90% (18/20) wi

138 The objective response rate (ORR) for single-agent anti-prog

139 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) in patients with 1% or mor

140 The study was powered to detect overall objective response rate (ORR) in the glembatumumab vedot

141 Objective response rate (ORR) is an increasingly importa

142 ent selinexor showed modest efficacy with an objective response rate (ORR) of 4% and clinical benefit

143 mab plus dabrafenib and trametinib led to an objective response rate (ORR) of 78%, including 44% comp

144 To evaluate the safety and objective response rate (ORR) of imiquimod in combinatio

145 nd points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1.

146 rimary end points were investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per the Lugano 2014 criter

147 The objective response rate (ORR) to pembrolizumab was 56% (

148 For BV plus DTIC, the objective response rate (ORR) was 100% and the complete

149 In 3464 evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 17% (n=603), with subg

150 The objective response rate (ORR) was 2 of 6 (33%) for the s

151 5 mg/kg, the investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 43%, and duration of r

152 For assessable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 64% (15 complete respo

153 The objective response rate (ORR) was 92%, with 73% achievin

154 Objective response rate (ORR) was also similar between t

155 Adjusting for number of doses, objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher i

156 The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher w

157 Objective response rate (ORR) was the primary end point.

158 patients, median PFS, overall survival, and objective response rate (ORR) were 11.0 months, 18.5 mon

159 e survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were assessed according to

160 e survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were assessed according to

161 Foretinib safety and tolerability, and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated in patients

162 l (OS), time to worsening of pain (TWP), and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated.

163 ts included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), and

164 in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate

165 ts included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

166 ts included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

167 points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment toxicity.

168 ndary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), cardiac toxicity, and saf

169 as used to estimate the primary end point of objective response rate (ORR), defined by RECIST (Respon

170 y end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of objective res

171 verall survival, PFS by chemotherapy cohort, objective response rate (ORR), duration of objective res

172 The evaluated clinical outcomes were: objective response rate (ORR), immune-related adverse ev

173 urvival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), an

174 Secondary end points included tumor objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), an

175 Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), sa

176 Objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, and saf

177 Secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival

178 points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), R0 resection rate, grade

179 The primary endpoint was composite CNS objective response rate (ORR), requiring all of the foll

180 Purpose To evaluate objective response rate (ORR), safety, and survival afte

181 overall survival, secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), safety, symptom improveme

182 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), with secondary end points

183 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), with secondary end points

184 The primary end points were safety and objective response rate (ORR).

185 Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR).

186 efficacy end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR).

187 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR).

188 The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR).

189 The primary end point was RECIST 1.1 objective response rate (ORR).

190 The primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR).

191 icantly better progression-free survival and objective response rate (ORR).

192 The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); a two-stage design was us

193 The primary end point was centrally assessed objective response rate (ORR); secondary end points incl

194 The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); the null hypothesis (<= 5

195 The primary end point was safety, and objective response rate (ORR, confirmed) was a key secon

196 Confirmed intracranial objective response rate (ORR-IC) was evaluated in patien

197 months), and 62 patients were evaluable for objective response rate (ORR; 15%; 95% CI, 7% to 26%).

198 ; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), a

199 In the overall cohort, the objective response rate (ORR; iRECIST(14)) was 20%.

200 Key efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer

201 In parts B and C, confirmed objective response rates (ORR) were 15% (95% CI, 4% to 3

202 ) or three or more of 25 (cohort 3B) had CNS objective response rates (ORR), the drug combination wou

203 ponses (CRs) and six partial responses (PRs; objective response rate [ORR], 42.9%; 90% CI, 24.5% to 6

204 Objective response rates (ORRs) at any site were similar

205 PFS, overall survival (OS), and objective response rates (ORRs) were compared to determi

206 ded OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate; OS and PFS were also analyzed a

207 Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and t

208 advantages for vandetanib were also seen for objective response rate (P < .001), disease control rate

209 ow significantly effectiveness and safety in objective response rate (P < 0.001), survival time exten

210 The primary end point was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1.

211 The primary end point was objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria

212 Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria

213 primary endpoint was independently confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria

214 end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and

215 Secondary objectives included confirmed objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in

216 nd tolerability for the escalation phase and objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria In

217 nt ovarian cancer, the regimen induced a 35% objective response rate (RR) and progression-free surviv

218 Coprimary end points were objective response rate (RR) and response prediction by

219 The confirmed objective response rate (RR) was 32% (11 of 35 patients;

220 ion with progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (RR) was analyzed using the Cox

221 The primary end point was objective response rate (RR).

222 The best objective response rate (RR; Response Evaluation Criteri

223 overall survival, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, safety, patient-reported outcom

224 The primary end points were safety and objective response rate; secondary end points were progr

225 hs [1.3-4.1]; HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.75) and objective response rate suggested some clinical activity

226 onger progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase

227 ary end point was the independently assessed objective response rate; the primary hypotheses were tha

228 The objective response rate to FOLFOXIRI-Bev was 69% (95% CI

229 At a median follow-up of 12 months, the objective response rate to ipilimumab and nivolumab was

230 The objective response rate to pembrolizumab was 23% (nine p

231 The objective response rates to induction and overall treatm

232 In non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), objective response rates to monotherapy were 71% in foll

233 The objective response rate was 13.8% in patients who receiv

234 ior to first progression, the RECIST-defined objective response rate was 14% (5 patients) and 16% (15

235 The objective response rate was 14.3% (95% CI, 5.9% to 27.2%

236 The objective response rate was 15%.

237 The objective response rate was 18.2% (9.8-29.6) with olarat

238 Among all the patients, the objective response rate was 19.4%, and the median durati

239 ients with nonenhancing glioma (n = 35), the objective response rate was 2.9%, with 1 partial respons

240 The objective response rate was 20% (95% CI 15-26) in patien

241 Objective response rate was 20.1% with selumetinib + doc

242 The objective response rate was 21% (complete response = 4 [

243 Objective response rate was 21% overall and 27% in the R

244 At 17.2 months' median follow-up, the objective response rate was 23% (95% CI 16 to 31), the c

245 The objective response rate was 23% with pembrolizumab and 1

246 The objective response rate was 25% (33 of 130), including 1

247 ; n = 45) and 2 (post-chemotherapy; n = 45), objective response rate was 25% and 10%, and median over

248 Objective response rate was 25.6%, 26.9%, and 38.0% in t

249 For patients with refractory DLBCL, the objective response rate was 26% (complete response rate,

250 For all evaluable patients, the confirmed objective response rate was 26%, including one complete

251 e, one to 12) since diagnosis, the confirmed objective response rate was 30% (partial response, n = 1

252 Objective response rate was 32% (95% confidence interval

253 Objective response rate was 34.3% (95% CI, 25.3% to 44.2

254 Therefore, the overall objective response rate was 40%.

255 The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0)

256 dian follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ong

257 Confirmed objective response rate was 44% (95% CI, 35.1% to 53.2%)

258 Objective response rate was 44% for DLBCL, including 8 (

259 patients with HA-high tumors (PAG v AG), the objective response rate was 45% versus 31%, and median o

260 In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 grou

261 The objective response rate was 46% after the first four cyc

262 The objective response rate was 48% (7 complete responses; 3

263 , 12 were confirmed responders; the observed objective response rate was 50% (95% CI, 29% to 71%).

264 The objective response rate was 50%, and 44% of patients had

265 The confirmed objective response rate was 50.0% (95% CI, 33.8% to 66.2

266 Objective response rate was 52.5% (95% confidence interv

267 The objective response rate was 58% and 63% in cohorts A and

268 The objective response rate was 58.3% for patients who disco

269 rate was 35.5% (95% CI, 27.6% to 44.3%) and objective response rate was 60.2% (95% CI, 50.6% to 69.0

270 The objective response rate was 61.0% (95% CI, 44.5%-75.8%),

271 Confirmed objective response rate was 62%, with a complete respons

272 The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-thera

273 The objective response rate was 65% in the experimental grou

274 The objective response rate was 69% (95% CI 53-82; 31 of 45

275 The objective response rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6

276 The confirmed objective response rate was 71.8% (95% confidence interv

277 Objective response rate was 8%, 12%, 22%, 43%, 57%, and

278 The objective response rate was 82%, and the complete respon

279 The objective response rate was 85%, including 15 patients (

280 In phase II, the objective response rate was 85.7%.

281 Objective response rate was 86% (95% confidence interval

282 Following R-MPV, objective response rate was 97%, and 26 (81%) patients p

283 Objective response rate was higher in the combination ar

284 The objective response rate was higher with T-DM1 (43.6%, vs

285 ing procedure was used to assess whether the objective response rate was significantly higher than th

286 ion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with ta

287 4 adverse events related to therapy and the objective-response rate was 20%.

288 CT-ineligible cohort, independently assessed objective response rates were 10% and 3%, and median dur

289 Objective response rates were 11.0% for eribulin and 11.

290 Objective response rates were 24% among patients with pr

291 utoff Sept 14, 2015), by independent review, objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 18-36) in the

292 Objective response rates were 26.3% (95% CI, 9.1 to 51.2

293 Objective response rates were 28% (95% CI, 13.7% to 41.3

294 al rates were 42.6% and 50.3%, respectively; objective response rates were 28.2% and 37.8%, respectiv

295 In patients evaluable for response, the objective response rates were 34.6% (95% CI, 28.3-41.3)

296 Objective response rates were 40%, 36%, 15%, and 40% amo

297 Objective response rates were also significantly lower f

298 Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment

299 Objective response rates were similar in the two arms: 1

300 Use of liso-cel resulted in a high objective response rate, with a low incidence of grade 3