ライフサイエンスコーパス: response rate

1 sidents' CVs were received and assessed (97% response rate).

2 identified, 448 responded to the survey (69% response rate).

3 ned from 62 of 87 eligible recipients (71.2% response rate).

4 response rate; n=1082 surveys, 32.1% program response rate).

5 ndpoints were overall survival and objective response rate.

6 The primary end point was objective response rate.

7 ants were enrolled in the study with a 98.6% response rate.

8 Primary outcome was overall response rate.

9 al (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate.

10 but the main commonality between studies is response rate.

11 The primary outcome was overall response rate.

12 ad a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate.

13 The primary endpoint was overall response rate.

14 utic benefit to HCC patients, suggesting low response rate.

15 hat antiprogestins may improve immunotherapy response rates.

16 mitters have been introduced, with promising response rates.

17 066) and overall (75% versus 90%; P = 0.054) response rates.

18 mmune checkpoint inhibitors shows remarkable response rates.

19 rapy with ibrutinib after VenR achieved high response rates.

20 and which factors are associated with higher response rates.

21 tus, which is subject to poor recall and low response rates.

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

23 isease R-Mono conferred an inferior complete response rate (21% versus 68%; P = 0.006), albeit with n

24 r to detect smaller differences, and the low response rate (3%), which may limit the generalisability

25 year adult nephrology fellows were examined (response rate=42.9%).

26 ients were classified as responder (observed response rate: 44.4%; intention-to-treat: 32.0%).

27 igher rates of very good partial or complete response rates (64% v 39%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.47; 95%

28 The 133 responding programs (response rate = 66%) represented 77% of adult KTs and 79

29 Similarly, there was no difference in response rate (67% v 74%; P = .38) or overall survival (

30 Of them, 2200 (response rate, 75.5% of those eligible) participated in

31 ionnaires regarding 1384 deceased residents (response rate 81%).

32 Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet

33 general adult population as reflected by the response rate (95.85%) and the low percentage of unanswe

34 general surgery residents from 260 programs (response rate 99.3%), 34.7% reported nodding off while d

35 The median response rate across surveys was 93.8% (range, 64.0%-99.

36 es and stability, the effect of variation in response rate across system components remains unconside

37 nded phase II dose (RP2D) of CPX-351 and the response rate after up to 2 cycles of therapy.

38 The primary endpoint was overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles (analys

39 The overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles was 62.

40 The high response rates after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy can be

41 th vaccination) and Env-specific CD4+ T-cell response rates after the third and fourth vaccinations.

42 e (CHOP)-based chemotherapy confers improved response rates, although concerns exist about toxicity.

43 al of selumetinib to determine the objective response rate among patients with plexiform neurofibroma

44 2 primary objective was to evaluate overall response rate and clinical benefit rate.

45 ts in diverse preclinical animal models, the response rate and efficacies in clinical trials were not

46 b and ipilimumab in EOC resulted in superior response rate and longer, albeit limited, PFS, with toxi

47 BMDex improved hematologic response rate and overall survival.

48 positive patients exhibited an enrichment in response rate and progression-free survival of 44% and 6

49 Objective response rate and progression-free survival per investig

50 Results: The overall response rate and the overall disease control rate of th

51 rved with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression.

52 Secondary objectives included toxicity, response rate and time to intracranial or extracranial d

53 To more accurately assess response rate and toxicity, an expanded cohort was nonra

54 nd very good partial (47.2% v 9.1%; P < .01) response rates and a shorter time to major response (1.8

55 High response rates and durable remissions were typically ass

56 Poor response rates and high costs associated with treatment

57 ed "hot" tumors demonstrate higher treatment response rates and improved survival.

58 rst cycle had significantly higher objective response rates and longer progression-free and overall s

59 the clinic for cancer treatment, low patient response rates and potential immune-related adverse even

60 afenib led to initial excitement due to high response rates and profound regression of malignant mela

61 er, challenges associated with low objective response rates and severe systemic side effects still re

62 actic radiosurgery could further improve the response rates and survival but the risk of radiation ne

63 there is concern regarding elevated placebo response rates and the questionable validity of clinical

64 strategy: (((questionnaire) OR survey) AND "response rate") AND (surgery OR surgical).

65 AFP response, radiological response rate, and disease control rate at 3 months were

66 acteristics of migrants and nonmigrants, low response rate, and measurement error in estimating diet

67 s with brain metastases, confirmed objective response rate, and safety.

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

69 though pharmacotherapies are in development, response rates appear modest.

70 Response rates appear to be highly dependent on type of

71 Response rates are superior to prior published North Ame

72 etuximab or pembrolizumab) and the objective response rate as assessed by the investigator according

73 While no single treatment had as high a response rate as chemotherapy, nearly 90% of PDXs were e

74 ociated with an increased major pathological response rate as expected.

75 dose-limiting toxicities, and the objective response rate (assessed per Lugano criteria); endpoints

76 The clinical response rate at 12 months was 65 and 54% remained on TG

77 The primary end point was hematologic response rate at 3 months.

78 The overall response rate at that time was 84% in treatment-naive pa

79 as the 39-patient primary cohort's objective response rate at week 15 (ORR(W15)).

80 response include the cumulative and current response rates at a specific time point.

81 he fourth, with higher antibody and cellular response rates at month 18 than at month 12: IgG bAb res

82 The primary endpoint was objective response rate based on the 2007 International Working Gr

83 ratification to allow for differences in non-response rates based on age group, sex, and census-tract

84 n Antigen (BCMA) on MM cells have shown high-response rates, but limited durability.

85 The primary end point was overall response rate by consensus global response criteria.

86 endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate by RECIST in cohort one.

87 raises the tantalizing prospect of improving response rates by matching the use of specific agents to

88 With 20 patients, the RCB-0 plus RCB-I response rate can be estimated with a 95% CI with half w

89 apy would improve pathological near complete response rate compared with chemoradiotherapy alone.

90 The overall response rate (complete remission [CR]/CR with incomplet

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

92 The primary outcome was radiologic complete response rate (CRR) per RECIST; secondary endpoints incl

93 stical literature, estimation of the current response rate curve has garnered little attention in the

94 Overall response rate, duration of response, and overall and eve

95 regimens that offer high sustained virologic response rates even in the setting of immunosuppression

96 In-person surveys yield an average 76% response rate, followed by postal (65%) and online (46%

97 highest treatment dose, with an 83% overall response rate for the overall population.

98 Objective response rates for pazopanib and doxorubicin were 12.3%

99 Here I vary the component response rates (gamma) of randomly generated complex sys

100 Primary outcomes were response rate (>=50% HAM-D-17 score reduction) after the

101 NRS response rates (>=4-point decrease) were greater for 30

102 Pathologic complete response rates have improved on account of more effectiv

103 The excitement about these unprecedented response rates, however, was tempered by tumor unrespons

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

105 SNs resulted in slower action initiation and response rate in an instrumental conditioning task, but

106 the major contributor to the high objective response rate in anti-PD-1 therapy.

107 therapy tisagenlecleucel (CTL019) has an 81% response rate in children with relapsed or chemotherapy

108 The overall response rate in efficacy-evaluable patients was 32% (8/

109 Additional contacts significantly improve response rate in email (P = 0.26) and web-based (P = 0.0

110 However, the greatest response rate in patients with larger hearts was observe

111 VI produced a high response rate in patients with metastatic DAWT.

112 mary endpoints (safety in GEN501 and overall response rate in SIRIUS) have previously been reported.

113 The overall response rate in the 32 patients with active disease who

114 secondary endpoint was investigator-assessed response rate in the dose-expansion phase.

115 The remarkably high and growing placebo response rates in clinical trials for CNS indications, s

116 acute myeloid leukemia (AML), with promising response rates in combination with hypomethylating agent

117 Recent studies demonstrated poorer response rates in female and younger patients.

118 rial, which showed best overall and complete response rates in infused patients of 83% and 58%, respe

119 Best overall and complete response rates in infused patients were 82% (95% CI, 77%

120 Response rates in the non-randomised cohort were 37% (37

121 (177)Lu-PSMA alone seems to have limited response rates in the treatment of liver metastases.

122 The overall response rate, including partial response with lymphocyt

123 owing season of treatment, the shrub warming response rate increased to 2.54 km m(-2) degrees C(-1) S

124 s elicited similar neutralization titers and response rates, indicating that the cell-derived vaccine

125 tings, including single-agent or combination response rates, inhibition of metastatic progression and

126 there is no consensus as to what the average response rate is and which factors are associated with h

127 eceptor-positive breast cancer, although the response rate is just over 50% and in vitro studies sugg

128 The current response rate is sometimes called the probability of bei

129 While the low response rate limits the generalizability of the finding

130 therapy confirms our earlier report of high response rates, low toxicity, and improved quality of li

131 endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate measured according to the Response Evaluat

132 Key secondary end points included major response rate (MRR), progression-free survival (PFS), du

133 CR; data were collected in 93 (83.8% country response rate; n=1082 surveys, 32.1% program response ra

134 r coinfected patients as sustained virologic response rates now exceed 95% and fibrosis-related param

135 cal success has been achieved due to the low response rates observed in different types of cancers.

136 py after progression (n = 12) had a reported response rate of 100% (10 of 10 evaluable patients); pat

137 metastatic cervical cancer, with an overall response rate of 14.3%.

138 A response rate of 16% was considered promising.

139 fewer responses, with pathological complete response rate of 17%(2).

140 articipated, yielding 270 completed surveys (response rate of 30%).

141 with combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 31% (14 of 45 patients; 95% CI 18-47) a

142 well tolerated and demonstrated an estimated response rate of 32%.

143 ve format is difficult; (4) Major pathologic response rate of 33% is encouraging.

144 A total response rate of 47/94 (50.0%) was obtained.

145 toclax-based regimen (n = 14) had a reported response rate of 55% (six of 11 evaluable patients).

146 e first 25 evaluable patients had an overall response rate of 64% ([95% CI 43-82] 16 of 25 patients;

147 mean follow-up of 44 months, with an overall response rate of 75%.

148 ed to the questionnaires, corresponding to a response rate of 77%.

149 nts responded to the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 81%.

150 with pembrolizumab demonstrated an objective response rate of 88% at the highest treatment dose, with

151 A total of 1271 students with a response rate of 89.4% were evaluated.

152 Seventeen OPOs responded to the survey (response rate of 89.5%).

153 ne kinase inhibitor therapy, with an overall response rate of 93% and an expected safety profile.

154 About 594 adults were participated with a response rate of 94%.

155 rticipants were included in the study with a response rate of 95.21%.The unmet need for presbyopia co

156 randomized phase II study defines safety and response rate of epigenetic priming in ER-positive breas

157 The null hypothesis specified a complete response rate of less than 27% in this cohort.

158 ion or expression of PD-L1 might improve the response rate of PD-L1 blockade therapy in PCa treatment

159 justed adequate clinical and parasitological response rate of the SP + AQ regimen in children with as

160 However, the mechanisms underlying the low response rate of those patients to EGFR tyrosine kinase

161 Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS)

162 The primary outcome of the study was overall response rate (ORR) as determined by RECIST 1.1 criteria

163 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks (ORR(Wk24)); secondary e

164 The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) at day 28; the key secondary end poi

165 The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1.

166 he primary end point was overall hematologic response rate (ORR) by the end of 6 continuous 28-day cy

167 Although the overall response rate (ORR) for GClb was lower in patients with

168 The objective response rate (ORR) for single-agent anti-programmed dea

169 abrafenib and trametinib led to an objective response rate (ORR) of 78%, including 44% complete respo

170 ib was well tolerated and yielded an overall response rate (ORR) of partial response or better of 95.

171 84 patients with de novo R/R DLBCL, overall response rate (ORR) was 29%, including 11% complete resp

172 he investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 43%, and duration of response wa

173 me to worsening of pain (TWP), and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated.

174 d progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

175 ents included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), clinica

176 evaluated clinical outcomes were: objective response rate (ORR), immune-related adverse events (irAE

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

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

179 e primary end point was RECIST 1.1 objective response rate (ORR).

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

181 e primary end point for phase II was overall response rate (ORR).

182 tter progression-free survival and objective response rate (ORR).

183 y end point was centrally assessed objective response rate (ORR); secondary end points included progr

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

185 Confirmed intracranial objective response rate (ORR-IC) was evaluated in patients with me

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

187 ogression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate; OS and PFS were also analyzed according t

188 native, a curve constructed from the current response rates over the entire study period may be consi

189 The primary end point was overall response rate (partial response or better) assessed by t

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

191 one-way analysis of variance we present mean response rate per survey mode over time, number of addit

192 At 3 months, renal response rate (primary end point) was not different (41

193 The response rates (proportion of participants with HIV-1 RN

194 ancer therapeutics; however, in many cancers response rates remain low.

195 outcomes for a proportion of these patients, response rates remain variable.

196 However, the response rate remains relatively low, and patients with

197 The survey returned a 56% response rate, reporting 85 new cases of paediatric glau

198 Two-hundred sixty out of 419 (62.1% response rate) resident physicians completed the survey,

199 and veliparib treatment demonstrated a high response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), and over

200 Despite clinically similar response rates, statistical noninferiority of EGP-437 ve

201 ation and immunotherapy have shown promising response rates, strengthening efforts to sensitize tumor

202 with comparable total pathological complete response rates, supporting the FDA approval.

203 rechallenge (177)Lu-PSMA demonstrated higher response rates than other systemic therapies.

204 factors can help mitigate the large placebo response rates that are increasingly seen in failed CNS

205 ion therapy approaches that seek to increase response rates, the depth of remission and the durabilit

206 of increasing virological and immunological response rates through 96 weeks; these findings support

207 median follow-up of 12 months, the objective response rate to ipilimumab and nivolumab was 20%.

208 up demonstrated improved survival and a high response rate to PD1 blockade with pembrolizumab in a ph

209 The objective response rate to pembrolizumab was 23% (nine patients; 9

210 The overall response rate to the dose of 2.5 x 10(6) cells per kg wi

211 application of ultrasound; (2) the neuronal response rate to ultrasound is dependent on pulse repeti

212 ignificant differences seen, except a higher response rate to ZM96.C gp120 at month 18 versus month 1

213 rates at month 18 than at month 12: IgG bAb response rates to 1086.C V1V2, 21.0% versus 9.7% (differ

214 IgG bAb response rates to all 4 primary V1V2 antigens were highe

215 Consequently, STING-NPs increased response rates to alphaPD-L1 antibodies, resulting in si

216 clinical responses and high interim complete response rates to anti-PD1 based first-line treatment we

217 ppression, which can be exploited to improve response rates to checkpoint blockade.

218 hibition of MT2A as a powerful tool to boost response rates to cisplatin-based therapy in vitro.

219 e tumor microenvironment (TME) and enhancing response rates to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

220 IgG bAb response rates to the 3 primary vaccine-matched gp120 an

221 Response rates to V1V2 were lower and similar in both tr

222 Based on the survey (92% response rate), TO was defined by the absence of postope

223 motherapy did not improve major pathological response rate (TRG1 = 8%) but was associated with a sign

224 CAN(THC) maintained higher response rates under fixed ratio schedules and higher br

225 The 4-week overall response rate using 2018 International Workshop on CLL (

226 assess patient and procedural outcomes, but response rates vary widely which compromises study quali

227 ical simulations to show that when component response rates vary, the potential for system stability

228 D is an induction regimen that delivers high response rates (VGPR or better) in close to 90% of patie

229 The survey response rate was 16.1%.

230 The response rate was 17% versus 4% (P = .05), with a diseas

231 The overall response rate was 19%, including three patients with a c

232 nonenhancing glioma (n = 35), the objective response rate was 2.9%, with 1 partial response.

233 ents with tumors harboring FGFR fusions, the response rate was 22% (90% CI, 4.1% to 55%), and 6-month

234 The objective response rate was 23% with pembrolizumab and 10% with pl

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

236 The response rate was 25% and 24% according to PERCIST1 and

237 In the 23 evaluable patients, overall response rate was 26% (95% CI 10-48) in six patients wit

238 The overall response rate was 28% (36/127; 95% CI 20.7-37.0); 15 (12

239 The overall response rate was 29% in the all-treated population, wit

240 The overall response rate was 30.4% (95% CI 23.1-38.5), including 20

241 The overall response rate was 31% (n = 13 of 42).

242 living kidney donor candidates in 2017; the response rate was 31%.

243 Objective response rate was 32% (95% confidence interval (CI), 21-

244 Objective response rate was 34.3% (95% CI, 25.3% to 44.2%; 4 compl

245 Response rate was 36.9% overall and 68.8% for those with

246 The overall response rate was 38% with two complete responses and se

247 The weighted adjusted response rate was 53% (n = 2,161).

248 The confirmed PSA response rate was 54.8% (95% CI, 45.2% to 64.1%; 63 of 1

249 the triplet therapy group, and the complete response rate was 57% (95% CI 34-78%) in the ipilimumab

250 The overall lesion-level mRECIST response rate was 57%.

251 The response rate was 59.2% (n = 77) and 22.7% (n = 17) of f

252 dentified.Measurements and Main Results: The response rate was 67%, with 1,058 respondents (median ag

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

254 ximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 400 mug/d, the response rate was 70% (n = 7 of 10).

255 th relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the response rate was 70%, including 50% MRD-negative comple

256 The overall response rate was 74% (125 of 168 patients; 95% CI 67-80

257 The overall response rate was 76% (95% CI 53-92) in the ipilimumab g

258 The response rate was 763 (45%) of 1,680 potential responden

259 The overall response rate was 78.3% (18/23 patients; 95% CI, 56.3% t

260 The response rate was 79.7% (815 of 1,023) at 6 months.

261 the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the overall response rate was 8% (one of 13 patients; 0.2-36.0) and

262 Overall hematologic response rate was 96%, with a complete hematologic respo

263 The overall response rate was 97.1% after induction therapy and 98.5

264 The overall response rate was 98% (64 of 65 patients).

265 Response rate was a very high 79.3%, reflecting a strong

266 The overall response rate was determined according to RECIST v1.1.

267 The overall response rate was highest in the 20 mg three times weekl

268 The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than that frequently quoted to p

269 A similar response rate was observed at 15 min (8 mg: 75% [97.5% C

270 RCA1 or BRCA2 alteration, while a higher PSA response rate was observed in patients with a BRCA2 alte

271 A wide variation in response rates was identified between countries.

272 RCB-0 (pathologic complete response) rate was 53% and RCB-0/I was 63%.

273 progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate were compared between anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhi

274 from surgical(-related) fields reporting on response rate were included.

275 ERCC1 levels < 1.7 receiving FOLFOX, PFS and response rate were statistically superior to IT, with no

276 nAb response rates were >98% in both trials, with significan

277 IgG bAb response rates were 100% to 3 Env gp120 antigens in both

278 Complete metabolic/complete response rates were 17% (arm A), 75% (arm B), and 69% (a

279 Response rates were 41.7% in the active group and 36.4%

280 45 surgeons (10 countries), the second-round response rates were 61% and 85% respectively, with ten o

281 Response rates were 7%, 7%, 30%, and 30% based on RECIST

282 The Week 48 response rates were 75% (52/69, 95% confidence interval

283 Radiologic response rates were 75% and 63% in the Gef+C and Gef arm

284 Overall response rates were 75% and 82% for each round.

285 llow-up was 59 months, and overall and major response rates were 90.5% and 79.4%, respectively.

286 R0 and pathologic complete response rates were 96% and 62%, respectively.

287 Experts' response rates were 98% and 80% in rounds 1 and 2, respe

288 CD4+ T-cell response rates were higher at month 18 than month 12 for

289 PD-L1 expression (n = 28/40 evaluable), and response rates were higher in PD-L1-positive (8/28; 29%)

290 Response rates were independent from type of AMI present

291 CD4+ T-cell response rates were significantly higher with DNA plasmi

292 Although response rates were similar in the ZUMA-1-eligible and Z

293 The primary endpoint was the overall response rate, which was determined by Response Evaluati

294 Irinotecan had a 75% response rate, while only 50% responded to temozolomide.

295 The improvement in pathological response rate with the addition of pazopanib crossed the

296 significantly improved pathological complete response rates with an acceptable safety profile.

297 me inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy,

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

299 The primary endpoint was the overall response rate within 24 weeks assessed by the investigat

300 older patients (ie, >60 years) have a lower response rate, worse survival outcomes, and greater toxi