ライフサイエンスコーパス: MTD

1 MTD improved diagnostic accuracy and timeliness and redu

2 MTD was bendamustine 75 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 2), lenalido

3 MTD was defined at 0.8 mg/kg with 1 DLT observed (sepsis

4 MTDs containing basic residues alone fail to be targeted

5 MTDs include formyl peptides and mitochondrial DNA.

6 MTDs promote PMN Ca(2+) flux and phosphorylation of mito

7 The schedule 1 MTD (1.88 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) was associated with

8 te (ORR) was 2 of 6 (33%) for the schedule 2 MTD and 3 of 12 (25%) for the schedule 3 MTD.

9 e 2 MTD and 3 of 12 (25%) for the schedule 3 MTD.

10 ia, and hypertriglyceridemia, resulting in a MTD of vorinostat 180 mg/m(2)/d 4 times per week and 13c

11 es showed an excellent safety profile with a MTD (~30 mgDOX/kg) that is about 3 times as much as that

12 After MTD determination, patients were evaluated in an expansi

13 An MTD was identified at 63.25 Gy in 25 fractions.

14 No grade 3 pneumonitis was observed and an MTD for acute toxicity was not identified during patient

15 which was determined to be tolerable, and an MTD was not identified.

16 In the dose-escalation phase, an MTD was not reached at doses ranging from 50 to 650 mg p

17 Although our trial did not reach an MTD, a dose-dependent effect was demonstrated in the PK/

18 g alkyltransferase inhibition could reach an MTD.

19 us doses and schedules was feasible, with an MTD of 60 mug/m(2)/day.

20 /4 diarrhea) occurred at the 600-mg dose and MTD was 480 mg.

21 Here we characterized the effects of LDM and MTD capecitabine therapy on tumor and host cells using h

22 gy at 0.25 x MTD, 0.5 x MTD, 0.75 x MTD, and MTD were compared.

23 or patients with MM, no DLT was observed and MTD was not identified at up to 75 mg/m(2), owing to ear

24 The safety profile and MTD was assessed for the safety population.

25 (PD) parameters, including HbF response and MTD after standardized dose escalation, and to evaluate

26 lues of 1.1-1.2 h (dose of 5 mg/kg i.v.) and MTDs of 60-80 mg/kg (i.p.).

27 awaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts to assess MTD use, effectiveness, health-system benefits, and cost

28 At MTD in the escalation phase, eight patients (47.1%) disc

29 ust and similar to previous cohorts; %HbF at MTD was best predicted by 5 variables, including baselin

30 1-3p were both associated with HbF levels at MTD.

31 , ixabepilone, paclitaxel, or vinorelbine at MTDs.

32 in a hydrophobic groove in the autoinhibited MTD.

33 The median of the ratio between MTD and SD was eight (range, four to 1,000).

34 dian body mass index was lower in the IDA/CA/MTD group (46th percentile) versus the ODA groups (70th

35 Median FEV1 was worse in the IDA/CA/MTD group (72% predicted) versus the combined ODA groups

36 However, the 5- to 11-year-old IDA/CA/MTD group had more lobes of bronchiectasis (median, 5; P

37 otype groups, but worse in those with IDA/CA/MTD ultrastructural defects, most of whom had biallelic

38 ts with microtubular disorganization (IDA/CA/MTD; n = 40).

39 Circulating MTDs can elicit neutrophil-mediated organ injury.

40 success of dosing strategies, we contrasted MTD strategies as compared with low-dose, high-density m

41 her probabilities in identifying the correct MTD, even when the sample size is matched.

42 The cytarabine MTD used in stage two was 800 mg/m(2), and R-BAC was wel

43 mg/m(2) IV on days 2 and 3), and cytarabine (MTD IV on days 2 to 4) every 28 days for four to six cyc

44 essments done at 10 weeks of age after daily MTD treatment since the fourth week of life.

45 equentially assigned to CUDC-907 once-daily (MTD 60 mg), 12 to twice-weekly (MTD 150 mg), 15 to three

46 ow that injury releases mitochondrial DAMPs (MTDs) into the circulation with functionally important i

47 DL 2 was the determined MTD.

48 Peripheral membrane-targeting domain (MTD) families, such as C1-, C2- and PH domains, play a k

49 ts conserved mitochondrial targeting domain (MTD), which, in unstressed conditions, is inhibited by i

50 rgeting (the mitochondrial targeting domain [MTD]).

51 Alternative membrane targeting domains (MTDs) containing multiple basic residues can efficiently

52 eveloped macromolecule transduction domains (MTDs).

53 ry end points were maximally tolerable dose (MTD) of LEN and progression-free survival (PFS).

54 To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose limiting toxicity (DLT) of irinotecan admi

55 imed to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of irinotecan in p

56 was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose, assessed in patients

57 dose was deemed the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and RP2D.

58 oxicity in rats, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) we

59 imed to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended phase 2 dose of the selective H

60 mors to estimate the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and to describe the toxicity profile and pharmacoki

61 was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and to explore the clinical response to (177)Lu-DOT

62 harmacokinetics, and maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) determination.

63 tiated at 50% of the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) for the intact tablet.

64 on cohorts after the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) has been reached to better characterize the toxicit

65 was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of alisertib with irinotecan and temozolomide in th

66 le and establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of brentuximab vedotin in combination with ABVD and

67 nts to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of BV for SR-aGVHD treatment.

68 eme to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of carfilzomib.

69 atment to define the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of carfilzomib.

70 study determined the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of EC145 administered as a bolus intravenous inject

71 were to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of first-line gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in me

72 was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of isatuximab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

73 imed to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lenalidomide when combined with rituximab in a p

74 Finally, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of NSC23925b was determined.

75 was to describe the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of oral OA in patients with ET and assess the pharm

76 study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of oral pomalidomide (4 dose levels) administered o

77 ght to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of panobinostat plus bortezomib in patients with re

78 ial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pomalidomide and to explore its efficacy when co

79 ty and determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of single-agent, oral ixazomib given weekly for 3 o

80 s, which doubled the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Taxol.

81 ty and establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination and phase 2 was to assess overal

82 ous injection with a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the mGluR2/3 agonist LY379268 (20mg/kg) beginnin

83 ty and determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the regimen.

84 ither Nexvax2 at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or placebo.

85 when compared with a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) regimen in treating platinum-resistant ovarian canc

86 gs administered at a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) remains the backbone for treating most cancers.

87 ure from the classic maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) strategy, which, given its goal of rapid eradicatio

88 Buparlisib's maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was 100 mg/d.

89 ng at 4.8 mg/kg; the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was 3.6 mg/kg.

90 y (DLT) for CLL, the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was 75 mg/m(2), and the most frequent grade 3 to 4

91 ded until either the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was achieved or, in the absence of MTD, until three

92 The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as 25 mg lenalidomide (days 1-21/28 day

93 all trials, but the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was defined in only 13 studies (16%).

94 The maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was determined to be 25 mg lenalidomide with 15 mg

95 rase activity, but a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached.

96 The maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) with dose-escalated hypofractionation has not been

97 g toxicity (DLT) and maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), as well as to provide pharmacokinetic and prelimin

98 was to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and pharmacokineti

99 g dose escalation to maximum tolerated dose (MTD), followed by monthly phlebotomy.

100 When administered at maximum tolerated dose (MTD), hydroxyurea increases fetal hemoglobin (HbF) to le

101 2 study assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, safe

102 mine its toxicities, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity.

103 ors to determine its maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and modulation of phosphorylated

104 study evaluated the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of carfilzo

105 se 1 study evaluated maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics (PD), efficacy,

106 We determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, safety, and preliminary efficacy

107 afety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose, and hematologic and clin

108 ial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety profile, and pharmacokinetics of hu14.18K32

109 udy to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and preliminary efficacy of inotuzumab ozo

110 al were to determine maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and pharm

111 udy to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of INO plus

112 n study assessed the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of

113 ied out to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of

114 udy investigated the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, preliminary activity, pharmacokinetics (PK

115 Rs) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and the sche

116 tion to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD).

117 sed patients) at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).

118 Phase 1 established maximum tolerated dose (MTD).

119 y and after reaching maximum tolerated dose (MTD).

120 evels, including the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).

121 em on the basis of a maximum tolerated dose (MTD).

122 The maximum-tolerated doses (MTDs) were 40 mg/m(2) (schedule 1) and 105 mg/m(2) (sche

123 in identifying true maximum-tolerated doses (MTDs), although the sample size required by the 3 + 3 de

124 re, we show that microtubule-targeting drug (MTD) treatment impaired HIF-1alpha protein nuclear trans

125 c efficacies of mitochondria-targeted drugs (MTD) in combination with 2-deoxy-d-glucose (2-DG), a com

126 e development of multitarget-directed drugs (MTDs).

127 than paclitaxel or ixabepilone at equivalent MTD-based doses.

128 ase and to update or confirm the established MTD.

129 cacy of inotuzumab ozogamicin in an expanded MTD cohort of patients with relapsed or refractory CD22(

130 41 enrolled patients, 38 were evaluable for MTD determination.

131 Plasma from MTD capecitabine-treated mice induced a more tumorigenic

132 id-fast-bacilli-smear-positive specimens had MTD performed; MTD positive-predictive value (PPV) was 9

133 patients having smear-negative specimens had MTD; MTD PPV was 90% and NPV was 88%.

134 nts suspected of tuberculosis but not having MTD, smear PPV for lab-confirmed tuberculosis was 77% an

135 f percentage of HbF (%HbF) response is high, MTD itself is variable, and accurate predictors of hydro

136 an, SKOV-3; breast, MDA-MB-468) and a higher MTD in mice (10mg/kg versus 5mg/kg).

137 nt, there is a 50% chance that a new, higher MTD will be recommended.

138 se in NK and T cytotoxic cells were found in MTD-capecitabine-treated tumors compared with LDM-capeci

139 Outcomes included MTD, safety, pharmacokinetics, response, progression-fre

140 luding 5 within BCL11A, but none influencing MTD %HbF or dose.

141 Of interest, MTD-mediated mitochondrial targeting of Vms1 is negative

142 Compared with no MTD, MTD significantly decreased time to diagnosis in patient

143 nts having smear-negative specimens had MTD; MTD PPV was 90% and NPV was 88%.

144 While MTD generally cost more than no MTD, incremental cost savings occurred in patients with

145 Compared with no MTD, MTD significantly decreased time to diagnosis in pa

146 ose (MTD) was achieved or, in the absence of MTD, until three dose levels above full BTK occupancy by

147 disease, where the therapeutic advantage of MTD capecitabine was limited despite a substantial initi

148 ation ceased at 160 mg per day given lack of MTD and endoxifen concentrations > 1,900 ng/mL.

149 ccounting for the therapeutic limitations of MTD compared with LDM capecitabine.

150 HL function failed to restore the ability of MTDs to inhibit HIF-1alpha, suggesting that VHL does not

151 ion can be rescued by N-terminal addition of MTDs containing basic residues.

152 ufficient in computational identification of MTDs within families (yielding less than 65% accuracy ev

153 in tumor biology, and the widespread use of MTDs in clinical oncology.

154 esults show that LDM strategies outperformed MTD strategies in total tumor cell reduction.

155 -smear-positive specimens had MTD performed; MTD positive-predictive value (PPV) was 98% and negative

156 sion phase and 52.9% at the escalation phase MTD.

157 isolation for patients having smear-positive/MTD-negative/culture-negative specimens, decreased outpa

158 to diagnosis in patients with smear-positive/MTD-positive specimens, decreased respiratory isolation

159 tigating neurologic events at a prespecified MTD.

160 ) initiated hydroxyurea and 60 (90%) reached MTD at 26.2 +/- 4.9 mg/kg/d with 29.1% +/- 6.7% fetal he

161 inued to 12.5 mg/kg per day without reaching MTD.

162 litaxel and ixabepilone, at their respective MTDs, produced significant deficits in caudal nerve cond

163 MTD is obtained 30% of the time (ie, revised MTD is exactly the true MTD), and moderate improvement i

164 is obtained 80% of the time when the revised MTD is within a level from true MTD.

165 to a change in the MTD, how far the revised MTD was from the true MTD, and the toxicity rates associ

166 We compare the accuracy of the revised MTD with the MTD obtained before expansion and with the

167 bicin, whereas 3 showed essentially the same MTD as doxorubicin.

168 0 mg), and seven to the 5/2 dosing schedule (MTD 60 mg).

169 -bearing mice and compared with the standard MTD protocol (100 mg/kg once a week for 4 weeks).

170 esponding to only a fraction of the systemic MTD of CBL0137.

171 after initiation of pazopanib at the tablet MTD.

172 s direct nucleic acid amplification testing (MTD) for pulmonary tuberculosis disease diagnosis in the

173 Specifically, we show that MTD treatment of RCC cells did not impair HIF-1alpha nuc

174 The MTD and RP2D of PF-00562271 is 125 mg twice per day with

175 The MTD for alisertib was 60 mg/m(2), with mandatory myeloid

176 The MTD for dual-dose O6-benzylguanine plus carmustine was a

177 The MTD for Nexvax2 was 150 mug because of transient, acute

178 The MTD for PF-04449913 was established to be 400 mg once da

179 The MTD of cediranib was 12 mg/m(2)/d (adult fixed dose equi

180 The MTD of EC145 was 2.5 mg when administered as either a bo

181 The MTD of INO in combination with rituximab (375 mg/m(2)) w

182 The MTD of panobinostat plus bortezomib was determined and d

183 The MTD of the regimen was dose level 1 (carfilzomib 20/27 m

184 The MTD of this combination regimen was 25 mg lenalidomide w

185 The MTD using (177)Lu-DOTA-rituximab was 1,665 MBq/m(2) of B

186 The MTD was 1,000 mg/m(2) of gemcitabine plus 125 mg/m(2) of

187 The MTD was 100 mg/d.

188 The MTD was 160 mg/m(2) once every 21 days.

189 The MTD was 175 mg daily.

190 The MTD was 20 mg lenalidomide.

191 The MTD was 20 mg of carmustine applied once in combination

192 The MTD was 450 mg/m(2) for tablet and 160 mg/m(2) for suspe

193 The MTD was 56 mg/m(2).

194 The MTD was 70 mg/m(2), and 104 patients (phase 1/2) receive

195 The MTD was defined as the maximum dose with </= 20% risk of

196 The MTD was determined to be 1.6 mg/m(2) bortezomib on days

197 The MTD was determined to be 1.8 mg/m(2).

198 The MTD was determined to be 2.97 mg/m(2).

199 The MTD was established as 225 mg twice per day orally over

200 The MTD was established as 36 mg/m(2).

201 The MTD was established as topotecan 0.6 mg/m(2)/d and ABT-8

202 The MTD was established at panobinostat 20 mg plus bortezomi

203 The MTD was studied using an open-label, single-ascending 3

204 The MTD, 125 mg daily, was determined on the basis of dose-l

205 The MTD, and recommended phase II dose, of hu14.18K322A is 6

206 In phase 1, the MTD of LEN was defined as 10 mg in cycles 2 through 6, a

207 evious reports, whereas all levels above the MTD had an average DLT rate of 36%.

208 f exposing patients to toxic doses above the MTD than the modified toxicity probability interval (mTP

209 Although the MTD was not formally determined, an 1,800-mg dose was se

210 ycle 1 of the dose-escalation phase, and the MTD was not reached up to the maximum planned dose of 20

211 , and 60 mug/m(2)/day was established as the MTD.

212 onse rate was 52% in patients treated at the MTD (n = 21).

213 on adverse events in patients treated at the MTD (n = 57) included hyperphosphatemia (82.5%), constip

214 At the MTD (n = 67 patients), the overall response rate was 67%

215 e in patients with measurable disease at the MTD (n = 9) was 44%.

216 At the MTD for each genotype, dosing by genotype resulted in si

217 a under the curve from 0 to 72 hours) at the MTD for each schedule coincided with the exposure in mou

218 BKM120, at the MTD of 100 mg/d, is safe and well tolerated, with a favo

219 At the MTD of 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks, T-DM1 was associated wit

220 etween those who received the vaccine at the MTD on either schedule and those who received placebo.

221 patients also received either Nexvax2 at the MTD or placebo.

222 The half-life of T-DM1 at the MTD was 3.5 days, with peak DM1 levels < 10 ng/mL.

223 6 months) among all patients treated at the MTD was 31%, including two objective responses in the co

224 t 6 months) among 15 patients treated at the MTD was 73%, including five objective responses.

225 Treatment at the MTD yielded objective response rates of 87%, 74%, and 20

226 average, 39% of patients were treated at the MTD, and 74% were treated at either the MTD or an adjace

227 At the MTD, grade 3 to 4 toxicities included anemia (9%), throm

228 At the MTD, paired tumor biopsies were obtained at baseline and

229 During expansion at the MTD, patients with FGFR1-amplified squamous cell non-sma

230 0 efficacy-evaluable patients treated at the MTD, the ORR was 90%.

231 At the MTD, the response rate was 48%, with 12.2 median months

232 f 30 (27%) evaluable patients treated at the MTD.

233 ther evaluate the efficacy and safety at the MTD.

234 hase 2 assessed overall response rate at the MTD.

235 2 was to assess overall response rate at the MTD.

236 ived carfilzomib on the same schedule at the MTD.

237 8%, with a 50% response rate observed at the MTD.

238 pansion cohort (12 patients) enrolled at the MTD.

239 the study, 44 patients were enrolled at the MTD.

240 utant solid tumors were also enrolled at the MTD.

241 Conclusion BGJ398 at the MTD/RP2D had a tolerable and manageable safety profile a

242 ization to mitochondria, through binding the MTD in an interaction that is competitive with binding t

243 imary toxicity was myelosuppression, but the MTD was not defined because doses up to 116 mg/m(2)/d we

244 week-schedule of SAR3419 for six cycles, the MTD is 160 mg/m(2).

245 A dose-escalation phase to determine the MTD of R-INO was followed by an expanded cohort to furth

246 the MTD, and 74% were treated at either the MTD or an adjacent level (one level above or below).

247 reassessment method was used to estimate the MTD.

248 on how to monitor safety and re-evaluate the MTD using data obtained from expansion cohorts of phase

249 To evaluate the MTD, we adjusted the dosage of the radiopharmaceutical a

250 In patients with the *28/*28 genotype, the MTD was 400 mg (one DLT per six patients), and 500 mg wa

251 In patients with the *1/*28 genotype, the MTD was 700 mg (five DLTs per 22 patients), and 850 mg w

252 In patients with the *1/*1 genotype, the MTD was 850 mg (four DLTs per 16 patients), and 1,000 mg

253 Among participants given the MTD, eight gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse e

254 In phase 1, to identify the MTD of lenalidomide, four patient cohorts received escal

255 e mean half-life was 23.9 h (SD 14.0) in the MTD group.

256 ercent of trials that led to a change in the MTD, how far the revised MTD was from the true MTD, and

257 INTERPRETATION: The MTD of Nexvax2 was 150 mug for twice weekly intradermal

258 erienced dose-limiting toxicity at 4 mg; the MTD was determined as 4 mg.

259 toxicities: 1 at 4.0 mg and 2 at 5.5 mg; the MTD was determined as 4.0 mg.

260 ientating toxicity studies in nude mice, the MTD of 1 was 3-fold higher compared to conventional doxo

261 It is efficacious at 1/10th of the MTD against human tumors derived from HCT-116 and NCI-H4

262 gnificant improvement in the accuracy of the MTD is obtained 30% of the time (ie, revised MTD is exac

263 ay result in a less accurate estimate of the MTD.

264 hase 2, patients received rituximab plus the MTD of lenalidomide, following the same cycles as for ph

265 (grade 3 pneumonia at 20 mg/kg QW/Q2W); the MTD was not reached.

266 nine patients were enrolled, 55 received the MTD (2.5 mg/d) and were evaluated.

267 44 (including six patients who received the MTD of lenalidomide in the phase 1 portion) in phase 2.

268 de 4 neutropenia) at 5 mg per day and so the MTD was 4 mg per day.

269 dict that drug concentrations lower than the MTD are as efficacious, suggesting that lowering the tot

270 exerted greater therapeutic effects than the MTD regimen, justifying its further clinical investigati

271 ecause of the limited observed toxicity, the MTD was infrequently reached, and therefore, the recomme

272 ith capecitabine may be undertaken using the MTD for any of the three treatment schedules.

273 Irinotecan 50 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days was the MTD when combined with vincristine, temozolomide and bev

274 The DLT was fatigue; 50 mg/d was the MTD.

275 are the accuracy of the revised MTD with the MTD obtained before expansion and with the true MTD base

276 The MTDs were 1.88, 1.5, and 1.0 mg/kg for schedules 1, 2, a

277 The MTDs were lenalidomide 25 mg, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), pe

278 ccumulation of LY2606368 was observed at the MTDs for both schedules.

279 nal failure) occurred at doses exceeding the MTDs.

280 Using the MTDs, termed Mito-CP and Mito-Q, we evaluated relative c

281 At their MTDs, the microtubule-binding drugs paclitaxel and ixabe

282 the revised MTD is within a level from true MTD.

283 obtained before expansion and with the true MTD based on simulated trials.

284 he time (ie, revised MTD is exactly the true MTD), and moderate improvement is obtained 80% of the ti

285 D, how far the revised MTD was from the true MTD, and the toxicity rates associated with each level a

286 evaluate the tolerability of the solid tumor MTD in children with refractory leukemias; and to charac

287 e resistant to the same drug delivered under MTD, the question arises whether it may be a preferable

288 Upon MTD determination, patients were enrolled to 4 different

289 clitaxel and eribulin, we performed a 2-week MTD-dosing regimen, followed by a determination of drug

290 ekly (MTD 150 mg), 15 to three-times-weekly (MTD 150 mg), and seven to the 5/2 dosing schedule (MTD 6

291 once-daily (MTD 60 mg), 12 to twice-weekly (MTD 150 mg), 15 to three-times-weekly (MTD 150 mg), and

292 The primary objectives were MTD evaluation and response to RVDD after 4 and 8 cycles

293 variables, including baseline %HbF, whereas MTD was best predicted by 5 variables, including serum c

294 While MTD generally cost more than no MTD, incremental cost sa

295 eradication is frequently not achieved with MTD, whereupon a de facto goal of longer-term tumor cont

296 to 100 mg twice daily was administered, with MTD determined as 75 mg twice daily.

297 f mitochondrial bioenergetic metabolism with MTDs and glycolytic inhibitors such as 2-DG may offer a

298 nd dorsal root ganglion morphology at 0.25 x MTD, 0.5 x MTD, 0.75 x MTD, and MTD were compared.

299 oot ganglion morphology at 0.25 x MTD, 0.5 x MTD, 0.75 x MTD, and MTD were compared.

300 morphology at 0.25 x MTD, 0.5 x MTD, 0.75 x MTD, and MTD were compared.