1 Primary outcome was
overall response rate.
2 LFOXIRI-Bev is associated with a significant
overall response rate.
3 The primary end point was the
overall response rate.
4 nts, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and
overall response rate.
5 nd points included overall survival (OS) and
overall response rate.
6 Primary end point was
overall response rate.
7 nd points were progression-free survival and
overall response rate.
8 The primary outcome was
overall response rate.
9 The primary endpoint was
overall response rate.
10 , with 877 patients clinically evaluable for
overall response rates.
11 ituximab regarding maintenance of R, CR, and
overall response rates.
12 lung cancer patients but are limited by low
overall response rates.
13 to acute myelogenous leukemia and improving
overall response rates.
14 uximab vedotin is effective in treating LyP (
overall response rate,
100%; complete response rate, 58%
15 Overall response rate (
27% v 10%) and median duration of
16 able patients with RCC treated at 20 mug/kg (
overall response rate,
27%).
17 rated and has significant clinical activity (
overall response rate 36.8%, median duration of response
18 ention (n = 469) or brochures only (n = 461;
overall response rate,
37.1%) and were again interviewed
19 tions, and 11 experienced partial responses (
overall response rate,
50%; disease control rate [DCR],
20 a range of doses and disease subtypes: iNHL
overall response rate,
58% (n = 31) with 6 complete resp
21 as 72%; person-level response rate, 84%; and
overall response rate,
60.1%.
22 (13%) achieved a partial metabolic response (
overall response rate 61% [95% CI 45-75]).
23 patients, including five complete responses (
overall response rate,
80%; disease control rate, 86.7%)
24 FCA also increased the
overall response rate (
88 vs 78%, P = .036), and the bon
25 B (68% v 50%; P = .002) who, despite similar
overall response rates (
90% v 87%), achieved a higher co
26 , response rates were the same in both arms (
overall response rate,
92%).
27 Among 21 evaluable patients, the
overall response rate after 1 blinatumomab cycle was 43%
28 Overall response rate after 6 cycles was 58% (7 of 12) w
29 nts with measurable disease after AHSCT, the
overall response rate after pidilizumab treatment was 51
30 The
overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles
31 The primary endpoint was
overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles
32 ed with a favorable safety profile but a low
overall response rate among patients with DLBCL who are
33 up of 30 months (through February 2015), the
overall response rate among the participants who could b
34 CR4(WT) (with WT indicating wild-type) (100%
overall response rate and 91.2% major response rate), fo
35 To compare the
overall response rate and assess the safety of a propose
36 he phase 2 primary objective was to evaluate
overall response rate and clinical benefit rate.
37 After treatment, the
overall response rate and disease control rate were 7.9%
38 ice for relapsed disease because of the high
overall response rate and excellent tolerability.
39 Results: The
overall response rate and the overall disease control ra
40 ual-dose O6-benzylguanine resulted in higher
overall response rates and reduced total carmustine dose
41 ondary end points included overall survival,
overall response rate,
and safety.
42 The primary end point was the
overall response rate,
and the secondary end points were
43 On the basis of the PFS,
overall response rate,
and tolerability of these two ant
44 rall survival and progression-free survival,
overall response rates,
and rates of R0 surgical convers
45 The primary end point was the
overall response rate as ascertained by the independent
46 ith the duration of overall survival and the
overall response rate as secondary end points.
47 tumor tissue; and an "expansion phase" with
overall response rate as the primary end point, in which
48 d with trastuzumab resulted in an equivalent
overall response rate at 24 weeks.
49 Overall response rate at 70 mg/m(2) was 77%.
50 The
overall response rate at study end was 70.8%.
51 The
overall response rate at that time was 84% in treatment-
52 The
overall response rate at the end of treatment was 55% (9
53 Primary end point was
overall response rate at the end of treatment.
54 The
overall response rates at 6 months were 80%, 87%, and 94
55 There was no significant difference in the
overall response rate between the two arms, with complet
56 Overall response rates between 75% and 90% and complete
57 Best
overall response rate (
BORR) was 29% (21% excluding nonc
58 The primary end point was
overall response rate by consensus global response crite
59 19 of these patients who were restaged, the
overall response rate by IWCLL imaging criteria 4 weeks
60 Patients attaining a CMR had a 96%
overall response rate by IWG criteria, with 62.5% achiev
61 Overall response rate (
complete and partial response) wa
62 The
overall response rate (
complete remission [CR]/CR with i
63 ts Four weeks after CAR-T cell infusion, the
overall response rate (
complete response [CR] and/or par
64 Overall response rate (
CR + PR) was 31% (95% CI, 11% to
65 Overall response rate,
duration of response, and overall
66 Primary outcomes were
overall response rate (
fatigue score >=4.5 for >=8 conse
67 The
overall response rate for all patients was 46% with 17%
68 The
overall response rate for patients with IMT (treated at
69 % at the highest treatment dose, with an 83%
overall response rate for the overall population.
70 The
overall response rates for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP were 97%
71 The
overall response rates for KRd vs Rd were 79.2% vs 59.6%
72 Results The
overall response rates for patients with ALCL treated at
73 The
overall response rates for radiologic, biochemical, and
74 The primary end point was an
overall response rate (&
gt;/= partial response) of 42.4% in
75 The primary endpoint was
overall response rate (&
gt;/= partial response).
76 The primary end point was the best
overall response rate (
i.e., the percentage of patients
77 The
overall response rate in all, non-T-cell, and T-cell lym
78 primary end point was investigator-assessed
overall response rate in BRAF(V600E) mut(+) MM patients.
79 The
overall response rate in efficacy-evaluable patients was
80 The primary endpoints (safety in GEN501 and
overall response rate in SIRIUS) have previously been re
81 Overall response rate in the 120 evaluable patients was
82 The
overall response rate in the 32 patients with active dis
83 Overall response rates in CLL/SLL patients (n = 66) were
84 The
overall response rates in patients with PTCL and CTCL we
85 The complete and
overall response rates in the combined cohorts were high
86 response rate (in the Italian trial) and the
overall response rate (
in the U.S. trial).
87 The
overall response rate,
including partial response with l
88 Overall response rate (
intent-to-treat) was 65%, with 49
89 In supplemental analysis, the
overall response rate (
LSAS score </=50) was 46%, includ
90 owed that compared with a historical control
overall response rate of 10%, treatment with atezolizuma
91 en patients were treated with R-CHOP with an
overall response rate of 100% (complete responses 89%).
92 erapy (n = 9) or azacitidine (n = 11) had an
overall response rate of 100% or 73%, respectively, with
93 rrent or metastatic cervical cancer, with an
overall response rate of 14.3%.
94 Patients achieved an
overall response rate of 28% (9 patients), and all were
95 /54 (85%) of evaluable patients achieving an
overall response rate of 30/64 (47%), with 1 patient hav
96 treated with combination therapy achieved an
overall response rate of 31% (14 of 45 patients; 95% CI
97 This regimen has a promising
overall response rate of 36% and median time to progress
98 e mutant IDH2 (mIDH2) inhibitor, produced an
overall response rate of 40.3% in relapsed/refractory AM
99 %) had progressive disease accounting for an
overall response rate of 45%.
100 The
overall response rate of 47% was not different between a
101 ), and progressive disease in 1 (3%), for an
overall response rate of 51%.
102 ), and partial response in 12 (32.4%) for an
overall response rate of 54%.
103 2019, the first 25 evaluable patients had an
overall response rate of 64% ([95% CI 43-82] 16 of 25 pa
104 atients achieved a partial remission, for an
overall response rate of 65% (90% CI, 48% to 79%).
105 other 5 (36%) were partial responders for an
overall response rate of 72% (10 of 14).
106 n and 26 men; median age, 59.5 years) had an
overall response rate of 73% (95% CI, 60% to 86%; 35 of
107 lymphoma and lymphomatoid papulosis, with an
overall response rate of 73% and complete response rate
108 ean age, 46.4 years; women, 52.0% ), with an
overall response rate of 74%.
109 over a mean follow-up of 44 months, with an
overall response rate of 75%.
110 L based on a clinical trial demonstrating an
overall response rate of 81%.
111 bendamustine-rituximab (BR) demonstrated an
overall response rate of 82% among 45 patients with rela
112 six (10%) achieved partial response, for an
overall response rate of 83%.
113 nstitutional clinical trials and achieved an
overall response rate of 87.5%.
114 better (n = 23), or stable (n = 2), with an
overall response rate of 92%.
115 s tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, with an
overall response rate of 93% and an expected safety prof
116 The
overall response rate of refractory/relapsed HCL patient
117 ith bone marrow-confirmed CR in 29% and 31%,
overall response rates of 100% and 96%, respectively, an
118 Overall response rates of 25.0% and 42.2% were achieved
119 3-CD19 monoclonal antibody, also resulted in
overall response rates of 40% to 50% and a median surviv
120 Adults and children each had initial
overall response rates of 57% and similar 5-year estimat
121 was partial response (PR) in four patients [(
overall response rate (
ORR) = 9%, 95% confidence interva
122 progression (TTP), duration of response, and
overall response rate (
ORR) according to the presence of
123 Primary end points were
overall response rate (
ORR) and duration of response (DO
124 Overall response rate (
ORR) and minimal residual disease
125 S); secondary/exploratory endpoints included
overall response rate (
ORR) and overall survival (OS).
126 The primary outcome of the study was
overall response rate (
ORR) as determined by RECIST 1.1
127 Primary endpoint was
overall response rate (
ORR) assessed with the Response E
128 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR) at day 28; the key secondary
129 nt was independent review committee-assessed
overall response rate (
ORR) by 2007 International Workin
130 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR) by RECIST version 1.1.
131 The primary outcome was week 24
overall response rate (
ORR) defined as complete or parti
132 Although the
overall response rate (
ORR) for GClb was lower in patien
133 The primary end point of this study was the
overall response rate (
ORR) in patients with follicular
134 a multikinase/KIT inhibitor, demonstrated an
overall response rate (
ORR) of 60% in advSM but biomarke
135 n, the primary objective was to evaluate the
overall response rate (
ORR) of CMP.
136 labrutinib was well tolerated and yielded an
overall response rate (
ORR) of partial response or bette
137 Overall response rate (
ORR) to first KI was 62% (complet
138 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR) using the revised Internatio
139 The
overall response rate (
ORR) was 21% (14/66), and 15% ach
140 Overall response rate (
ORR) was 22.5%, with nine confirm
141 Among 84 patients with de novo R/R DLBCL,
overall response rate (
ORR) was 29%, including 11% compl
142 In response-evaluable patients, the
overall response rate (
ORR) was 44% (complete response [
143 Overall response rate (
ORR) was 50% (56-mg/m(2) cohort).
144 In the efficacy-evaluable population, the
overall response rate (
ORR) was 56% (29/52) and was simi
145 The
overall response rate (
ORR) was 61%, and the complete re
146 The
overall response rate (
ORR) was 67% (44/66); 42% achieve
147 Overall response rate (
ORR) was 73.3% in the expansion p
148 In the MPD cohort,
overall response rate (
ORR) was 76.9% with median time t
149 Initial
overall response rate (
ORR) was 94.4% (68 of 72 patients
150 The
overall response rate (
ORR) was 97%, including 19% compl
151 The
overall response rate (
ORR) with BR-ibrutinib was 93.3%,
152 tios for milestone rates were calculated for
overall response rate (
ORR) within 6 months, 9-month pro
153 ary end point; secondary end points included
overall response rate (
ORR), duration of response (DOR),
154 assessments included overall survival (OS),
overall response rate (
ORR), duration of response (DOR),
155 points were progression-free survival (PFS),
overall response rate (
ORR), overall survival (OS), and
156 survival (OS); secondary end points included
overall response rate (
ORR), progression-free survival (
157 The secondary end points were
overall response rate (
ORR), progression-free survival (
158 kinetic parameters, pharmacodynamic effects,
overall response rate (
ORR), progression-free survival (
159 negative) and sidedness were correlated with
overall response rate (
ORR), progression-free survival (
160 res were progression-free survival (PFS) and
overall response rate (
ORR), respectively.
161 -free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS),
overall response rate (
ORR), response duration (RD), tim
162 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR).
163 Primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR).
164 The primary end point was the
overall response rate (
ORR).
165 The primary end point for phase II was
overall response rate (
ORR).
166 The primary outcome was
overall response rate (
ORR).
167 re limited, and prognosis is generally poor (
overall response rate [
ORR] 0% to 25%; 2-year overall su
168 in previously untreated follicular lymphoma (
overall response rate [
ORR] 90%-96%) and ibrutinib in re
169 The primary end point (
overall response rate [
ORR]) was evaluated by positron e
170 lenalidomide or vorinostat produce superior
overall response rates (
ORRs) to azacitidine is not know
171 2.7 months (hazard ratio = 0.68, P = .003),
overall response rates (
ORRs) were 33% and 18% (P = .013
172 The
overall response rates (
ORRs; CR/PR) at 12 months were 6
173 The primary endpoint was
overall response rate (
partial response [PR] + very good
174 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
partial response or better) asses
175 The primary end point was
overall response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria i
176 The
overall response rate (
per modified MDS International Wo
177 the efficacy of vemurafenib with respect to
overall response rate (
percentage of treated patients wi
178 bine in an unselected cohort did not improve
overall response rate,
PFS, or OS in patients with metas
179 associations between correlative markers and
overall response rate,
PFS, or OS.
180 Overall response rate pretransplant was 97%.
181 This trial met the prespecified
overall response rate primary end point, demonstrating a
182 rst-line platinum-based therapy to determine
overall response rate,
progression-free and overall surv
183 3 studies saw at least some response and the
overall response rates ranged from 48 and 81%.
184 overall survival, time to tumor progression,
overall response rate,
RBC transfusions, and thrombotic
185 At 1 month,
overall response rates regarding motor function were 87.
186 Primary end points:
overall response rate (
Response Evaluation Criteria in S
187 tives included progression-free survival and
overall response rate,
site-reported confirmed or unconf
188 l arms (EAs) and control arms (CAs) included
overall response rate,
stable disease, progression-free
189 Secondary end points were:
overall response rate,
stem-cell mobilization activity,
190 Of the 58 patients with V600 mutations,
overall response rate to BRAFi monotherapy and combinati
191 The
overall response rate to induction was 69%.
192 The
overall response rate to the dose of 2.5 x 10(6) cells p
193 The proportion responding (
overall response rate)
to bevacizumab was 28.2% among 39
194 The 4-week
overall response rate using 2018 International Workshop
195 Of the 38 patients with non-V600 mutations,
overall response rate was 0% (zero of 15) to BRAFi, 40%
196 tients with chromosome 17p13.1 deletion, the
overall response rate was 100%.
197 Overall response rate was 16% (95% CI, 11% to 23%), with
198 The
overall response rate was 17 of 43 patients (40%) at 3 t
199 Overall response rate was 17% (95% CI, 5% to 37%); four
200 o were evaluable for antitumor activity, the
overall response rate was 18.5%, the median time to resp
201 The
overall response rate was 19%, including three patients
202 nts refractory to rituximab monotherapy, the
overall response rate was 22%.
203 ho received doses of >/=1.5 mg/kg AFM13, the
overall response rate was 23% and the disease control ra
204 (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P = .0035);
overall response rate was 23.3% of evaluable patients (9
205 In the 23 evaluable patients,
overall response rate was 26% (95% CI 10-48) in six pati
206 The
overall response rate was 27%, including responses in th
207 The
overall response rate was 28% (36/127; 95% CI 20.7-37.0)
208 The
overall response rate was 29% in the all-treated populat
209 The
overall response rate was 30%, including responses in fo
210 Among the PTCL subtypes, the
overall response rate was 30%, whereas no responses were
211 The
overall response rate was 30.4% (95% CI 23.1-38.5), incl
212 The
overall response rate was 31% (n = 13 of 42).
213 The
overall response rate was 31% (one complete and 16 parti
214 Overall response rate was 31.1%, including 13 very good
215 The
overall response rate was 31.8%, with a 50% response rat
216 83 (median PFS, 6.0 v 5.6 months; P = .012);
overall response rate was 34.1% versus 33.0%; and diseas
217 The
overall response rate was 34.5% (1 near-complete respons
218 Overall response rate was 35% (arm 21/28) and 34% (arm 2
219 The CR/CRi rate was 20% and
overall response rate was 35%.
220 The
overall response rate was 36% in the cohort that receive
221 Among 38 evaluable patients, the
overall response rate was 36.8%: 47.1% in Sezary syndrom
222 The
overall response rate was 38% with two complete response
223 At day 28, the
overall response rate was 38.2% with 5 complete response
224 n allogeneic bone marrow transplant, and the
overall response rate was 38.8% (95% confidence interval
225 ng patients with relapsed or refractory AML,
overall response rate was 40.3%, with a median response
226 Overall response rate was 41%; 39% of patients had stabl
227 The
overall response rate was 43% (95% CI, 22% to 66%), incl
228 The
overall response rate was 44% (7/16; 95% confidence inte
229 Overall response rate was 44% (MCL, 75%; FL, 38%; DLBCL,
230 In patients with MF/Sezary syndrome, the
overall response rate was 50% (five of 10 patients) in p
231 ups (HR, 1.094; 95% CI, 0.991 to 1.209), and
overall response rate was 50% versus 51% (odds ratio, 0.
232 The best
overall response rate was 51%, with 40% of patients achi
233 The best
overall response rate was 52% (95% confidence interval,
234 nts with measurable disease at baseline, the
overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively
235 Overall response rate was 53% (151/284) with 49.0% (74/1
236 Overall response rate was 53% (20% complete response) an
237 The
overall response rate was 57% (13/23) across all patient
238 The
overall response rate was 60% (95% confidence interval [
239 The
overall response rate was 60%, while treatment-related m
240 Overall response rate was 62%; median duration of respon
241 The
overall response rate was 64.2% (88 of 137), representin
242 The
overall response rate was 66%, including 12% complete re
243 he rate of complete response was 10% and the
overall response rate was 66%.
244 The
overall response rate was 67% in the dabrafenib-trametin
245 At the MTD (n = 67 patients), the
overall response rate was 67%, and at least minimal resp
246 nd n=158 (46.4%) from the control group; the
overall response rate was 67%, and did not differ signif
247 The
overall response rate was 69% (complete remission [CR],
248 t 60 mug/m(2)/day (target dose; n = 35), the
overall response rate was 69% across NHL subtypes and 55
249 The
overall response rate was 71.9% versus 65.6% (two-sided
250 The
overall response rate was 72% (complete remission [R]/ma
251 The
overall response rate was 72%, with 39% of patients meet
252 The
overall response rate was 74% (125 of 168 patients; 95%
253 The
overall response rate was 76% (95% CI 53-92) in the ipil
254 Overall response rate was 77% (15 complete responses and
255 The
overall response rate was 78.3% (18/23 patients; 95% CI,
256 In the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the
overall response rate was 8% (one of 13 patients; 0.2-36
257 In part 2 (median follow-up of 15.6 months),
overall response rate was 81%, with 8 stringent complete
258 The
overall response rate was 83% with ABVD and 88% with Sta
259 Overall response rate was 84% (79% in lenalidomide-refra
260 The
overall response rate was 86% (n = 36).
261 ter induction and consolidation therapy, the
overall response rate was 86%, with 69% complete remissi
262 Overall response rate was 87.1% (1 complete response, 10
263 Overall response rate was 88.0% (95% CI, 80.7% to 100.0%
264 In the 18 patients that we treated, the
overall response rate was 89% (90% confidence interval o
265 ne, and a platinum derivative [R-DHAP]), the
overall response rate was 89%, and the complete response
266 The cumulative
overall response rate was 90%, comprising complete respo
267 rimary outcome occurred in 21 (72%), and the
overall response rate was 90%; of these patients, 45% we
268 The
overall response rate was 90.5%, and the major response
269 The
overall response rate was 93% after (R)-CHOP and 95% aft
270 At a median follow-up of 14.3 months, the
overall response rate was 95%, including 85% with a part
271 Overall response rate was 95%.
272 The
overall response rate was 97.1% after induction therapy
273 The
overall response rate was 98% (59 of 60) with 80% (48 of
274 The
overall response rate was 98% (64 of 65 patients).
275 Overall response rate was also higher in the T-VEC arm (
276 The
overall response rate was comparable between the two arm
277 The
overall response rate was determined according to RECIST
278 The
overall response rate was highest in the 20 mg three tim
279 ncy across study results (I = 98.3%) and the
overall response rate was low.
280 The
overall response rate was significantly higher in the ib
281 In addition, the
overall response rate was significantly higher in the VT
282 The
overall response rate was the same in the group that rec
283 l (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and
overall response rate were compared between anti-PD-1/PD
284 Overall response rates were 35.1% in the placebo group a
285 Overall response rates were 35.5% with BC and 24.5% with
286 Best
overall response rates were 37% in the 1,600/800-mg arm
287 During 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, the
overall response rates were 71%, 71%, 68%, and 60%, resp
288 Overall response rates were 73% (VD), 80% (VTD), and 70%
289 Overall response rates were 75% and 82% for each round.
290 Overall response rates were 76% (4 complete responses).
291 Overall response rates were 84%, with CR achieved in 10%
292 Overall response rates were 87.5% (R-CHOP and G-CHOP com
293 Overall response rates were 88%, 93%, and 91% for R-CVP,
294 After a median follow-up of 6.6 years,
overall response rates were 93%, with a very good partia
295 The
overall response rates were 96% (25 of 26 patients who c
296 The primary endpoint was the
overall response rate,
which was determined by Response
297 may have had on our results because of poor
overall response rates,
which ranged from 11.4% for land
298 The authors report a higher
overall response rate with higher doses of obinutuzumab
299 Overall response rate with R-CHOP and VR-CHOP was 98% an
300 The primary endpoint was the
overall response rate within 24 weeks assessed by the in