ライフサイエンスコーパス: central review

1 at baseline according to blinded independent central review).

2 eight of these patients were excluded after central review.

3 ors, version 1.1, as assessed by independent central review.

4 in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 by independent central review.

5 asurable disease at baseline per independent central review.

6 e disease at baseline by blinded independent central review.

7 e survival, according to blinded independent central review.

8 T examinations were evaluated locally and by central review.

9 Response was assessed every 9 weeks by central review.

10 ssion-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review.

11 Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1) by independent central review.

12 lected all available detailed RT records for central review.

13 s complete response rate (CRR), evaluated by central review.

14 had a CRR of 52% (P = .08) when evaluated by central review.

15 r the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review.

16 ed, 130 had histologically confirmed PTCL by central review.

17 ive response rate as assessed by independent central review.

18 Hip fractures were confirmed by central review.

19 urvival, assessed via a blinded, independent central review.

20 es were reported by centers and confirmed by central review.

21 r whom cytogenetic data were not accepted on central review.

22 n 1.1), as assessed by a masked, independent central review.

23 d with tumor-node (TN) substage confirmed on central review: 18, T4N0/1; 12, T4N2; and 20, N3.

24 to 4 courses and at the end of therapy with central reviewing according to visual dichotomous criter

25 objective (complete or partial) response by central review after six cycles of treatment, analysed b

26 jaw have been reported, with 26 confirmed on central review, all in the zoledronic acid group (1.7%,

27 re judged to have had an overall response at central review; all responses were partial.

28 as assessed by means of blinded independent central review, among patients with a PD-L1 expression l

29 ncing tumour <2 cm(2) post-chemoradiation by central review), analysed by modified intention to treat

30 ogression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, analysed by intention to treat after 714

31 sessed per RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review and overall survival were secondary endpo

32 No correlation between CD30 expression per central review and response was observed.

33 These children should undergo central review and should be surgically managed at cente

34 By using central review and the Deauville criteria, 2-year EFS wa

35 se Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1, central review) and safety.

36 Optimal, standardized techniques and central review are essential if chest CT is to be used f

37 se had an objective response, as assessed by central review, as did four (17%, 5-39) of 23 with metas

38 uation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (central review), assessed in prespecified subgroups base

39 was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review at week 12, then every 6 weeks up to week

40 graded by the testing audiologist and by two central review audiologists using the American Speech-La

41 Blinded independent central review (BICR) of progression in randomized clini

42 an objective response by blinded independent central review: confirmed complete responses were achiev

43 t [Dako Corp, Carpinteria, CA], confirmed by central review), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0

44 y, was progression-free survival assessed by central review; HRQOL was a prespecified secondary endpo

45 rogression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population.

46 version 1.1 assessed by masked, independent central review, in the intention-to-treat population, de

47 ession-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population).

48 ession-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population).

49 After central review, interim PET (n = 111) was negative in 76

50 high frequency audiometry, and to evaluate a central review mechanism for audiologic results for cisp

51 ical Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) to adopt a central review model.

52 in the resection cavity, assessed by blinded central review of brain MRI scans by the study neuroradi

53 rtified vascular neurologists with secondary central review of clinically obtained brain images.

54 After central review of discordant cases, we estimated the rat

55 Central review of endoscopic images is critical to the c

56 tive response rate determined by independent central review of gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance

57 Central review of HER2 status showed that only 2490 (79%

58 Blinded central review of imaging provides improved specificity

59 obtained during surgery, analysed by masked central review of local histopathology reports.

60 is of Wilms tumor rupture was established by central review of notes from surgery and/or pathologic e

61 o were aged 0-16 years at diagnosis, and had central review of pathology and comprehensive clinical d

62 with very low-risk Wilms tumor confirmed by central review of pathology, diagnostic imaging, and sur

63 rospectively enrolled, 115 were eligible for central review of PET/CT scans at the completion of stan

64 This proposal, possibly combined with central review of progression scans for these two time p

65 Hip fracture was adjudicated by a central review of radiology reports.

66 Central review of the endpoints was not done.

67 Central review of the interim PET2 scan was performed in

68 nrolled patients, 72 remained eligible after central review of their angiograms.

69 cell astrocytoma, as assessed on independent central review (P<0.001 for baseline vs. 6 months), with

70 osed according to the 2001 WHO criteria by a central review process consisting of panels of expert he

71 ndary end points included ORR by independent central review, time to response (TTR), duration of resp

72 ere progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall s

73 an objective response by blinded independent central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Sol

74 sessment of response was made by independent central review using the International Workshop Criteria

75 The median PFS by central review was 16.6 months (95% CI, 12.9 to 19.6 mon

76 irmed objective response rate by independent central review was 18.2% (95% CI, 8.2% to 32.7%; five co

77 Median PFS per independent blinded central review was 4.8 months (IQR 1.4-9.2) for regorafe

78 Estimated median rPFS by central review was 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 8.2 months

79 Median PFS by central review was 7.7 months with PTK/ZK versus 7.6 mon

80 ogic diagnosis of ACT was required, although central review was not mandatory.

81 Central review was then compared with institutional poin

82 rom prostate cancer, as assessed by means of central review, was 5.8% in the bicalutamide group, as c

83 hieved an objective response, as assessed by central review, were noted among the 42 with locally adv