ライフサイエンスコーパス: Karnofsky performance status

1 astases, duration of first-line therapy, and Karnofsky performance status.

2 ervous system, pulmonary manifestations, and Karnofsky performance status.

3 ain intensity, analgesic consumption, and/or Karnofsky performance status.

4 blished prognostic factors including age and Karnofsky performance status.

5 7.0 cm), private insurance (47% vs 52%), and Karnofsky performance status (60 vs 70) (P < .001 for al

6 le IIIA/IIIB histologically confirmed NSCLC, Karnofsky performance status 70 to 100, and 6-month pred

7 r prevalence of impaired performance status (Karnofsky performance status 70% to 80%) in the combinat

8 Median age was 57, and median Karnofsky performance status 80.

9 lows: median age 59 years (range, 25 to 75); Karnofsky performance status 90% (70% to 100%); male:fem

10 = 61; female, n = 24; median age, 58 years; Karnofsky performance status, 90%; GEJ, n = 28; gastric,

11 There was no association between Karnofsky Performance Status and chemotherapy toxicity (

12 Karnofsky Performance Status and European Organization f

13 MSTs for cases matched by stage, Karnofsky performance status, and age were: RT-010, 20.6

14 misation was stratified by baseline albumin, Karnofsky performance status, and ethnic origin.

15 (analgesic consumption and pain intensity), Karnofsky performance status, and weight.

16 Among survivors, the median Karnofsky performance status at last follow-up was 85%.

17 The Karnofsky Performance Status before transplantation was

18 rkers together with clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and n

19 sisting of the same clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and n

20 iagnosed between 1985 and 2005: patient age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extracranial metastases, a

21 Solid-tumor patients with a Karnofsky performance status greater than 70 who had nor

22 Forty patients with measurable disease and a Karnofsky performance status > or = 60% were enrolled at

23 All had Karnofsky performance status > or = 60% with no prior hi

24 h prolonged survival included a pretreatment Karnofsky performance status > or = 70% and fewer than t

25 available, measurable or assessable disease, Karnofsky performance status > or = 70%, and acceptable

26 In univariate analysis, Karnofsky performance status > or = 90% and no prior his

27 ersus former/current (36% v 8%; P<.001), and Karnofsky performance status > or =80% versus < or =70%

28 lanced between groups: median age, 71 years; Karnofsky performance status >/= 90%, 77.3%; and viscera

29 Fifty patients with newly diagnosed GBM (Karnofsky performance status >or= 60) were enrolled onto

30 used as risk factors for short survival: low Karnofsky performance status, high lactate dehydrogenase

31 lung cancer harbouring a RET rearrangement, Karnofsky performance status higher than 70, and measura

32 After stratification for Karnofsky performance status, histology, and number of p

33 At the time of maximal response, Karnofsky performance status improved in 12 (44%) of 27

34 as evidenced by high functional status (mean Karnofsky Performance Status index: 82.2/100 where >/= 8

35 Eligible patients had Karnofsky performance status (KPS) > or = 60%, Cancer of

36 eloquent/critical brain regions (P = .021), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) < or = 80 (P = .030),

37 0.62), the use of chemotherapy (RR = 0.63), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) greater than 80 (RR =

38 Two factors had independent prognosis: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) less than 80% and vis

39 troesophageal junction adenocarcinoma with a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of > or = 70% and nea

40 ears (range, 42 to 79) and 31 patients had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of 100%.

41 ere more likely to have a stable or improved Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score at 6 months' fo

42 Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was of borderline sig

43 on between functional status, as measured by Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and liver transplant

44 to account patient age, extent of resection, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), and treatment group

45 By univariate analysis, sex, age, race, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), exposure to erythrop

46 random element and stratification by centre, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), gender, status of br

47 The factors selected were age, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), hemoglobin (HGB), pr

48 itive worsening by one or more categories of Karnofsky performance status (KPS).

49 an easy-to-use prognostic model based on the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS).

50 lactic acid dehydrogenase (LDH); histology; Karnofsky performance status (KPS); stage; B symptoms; r

51 odel (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, Karnofsky performance status [KPS] <80, and <1 year from

52 3, 98 patients (frail = age >/= 50 years and Karnofsky performance status [KPS] of 50% to 70%; elderl

53 plantation (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.61), Karnofsky performance status less than 90% (HR, 1.25; 95

54 rvival in the multivariate analysis were low Karnofsky performance status, low hemoglobin level, and

55 ydrogenase > 1.5x upper limit of normal, and Karnofsky performance status < 80%).

56 ase more than 101 U/L (HR = 2.8; P = .0002), Karnofsky performance status </= 70 (HR = 2.3; P = .007)

57 rvival in the multivariate analysis were low Karnofsky performance status (<80%), high serum lactate

58 ologically documented recurrent glioma and a Karnofsky performance status of > or = 60% who were elig

59 Patients with Karnofsky performance status of 60% to 70%, creatinine c

60 Patients (35 to 76 years old) had a median Karnofsky performance status of 90%.

61 progressed after docetaxel treatment with a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70% and who we

62 Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients and Karnofsky Performance Status Rating Scale), and patient-

63 our studies; n = 257) stabilized or improved Karnofsky performance status (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.12 to

64 patient and graft survival is 80%, and their Karnofsky performance status score increased by a mean o

65 with severe anemia, clinical depression, or Karnofsky performance status score less than 70 were exc

66 tivariate analysis, chemotherapy resistance, Karnofsky performance status score less than 80 at trans

67 mple of 65 adult oncology outpatients with a Karnofsky performance status score of >or= 50, an averag

68 Inclusion criteria included a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70, measu

69 In addition, the Karnofsky performance status score was used to compare p

70 elated to survival after accounting for age, Karnofsky performance status score, histology, and time

71 We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a s

72 ified according to age, histologic findings, Karnofsky performance-status score, and presence or abse

73 were analyzed as prognostic factors for OS: Karnofsky performance status, stage, sex, age, race, mar

74 After adjustment for age and Karnofsky performance status, the OS of vaccinated patie

75 standard clinical parameters (e.g., age and Karnofsky performance status), these model-defined param

76 riables for overall survival controlling for Karnofsky performance status, tumor stage, nodal stage,

77 The Karnofsky Performance Status was assessed objectively fo

78 n Treatment and Outcome Study (EUTOS) score, Karnofsky performance status, year of diagnosis, and exp