戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。

今後説明を表示しない

[OK]

コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1                Eighty-five patients remained evaluable.
2 ven patients were enrolled, 295 of whom were evaluable.
3 83 eligible patients were enrolled; 178 were evaluable.
4  total patients with 704 patients clinically evaluable.
5 red thirty-six of the enrolled patients were evaluable.
6                       Fourteen patients were evaluable.
7 hundred and two samples of 149 patients were evaluable.
8 10% CR and 14% CRi, including 4 patients not evaluable.
9 5%) of the 5522 patients were not clinically evaluable.
10  of 298 patients received treatment and were evaluable.
11  181, 13 months; N3: 5, 7 months; Nx: 1, not evaluable.
12 e patients were treated, one of whom was not evaluable.
13 One hundred eighty-nine of 208 patients were evaluable.
14 thods Of the 534 enrolled patients, 504 were evaluable.
15 HCs in the survivors who were not clinically evaluable.
16 Results Of the 90 patients enrolled, 80 were evaluable.
17  the interim analysis, 142 participants were evaluable.
18 limus, and 25 (21 men, 4 women) provided two evaluable 12-hr PK profiles.
19 od samples from 161 men with mCRPC, 191 were evaluable (128 pre-ARS inhibitor and 63 pretaxane).
20 s participated in our study of whom 190 were evaluable, 162 had an MRI.
21 even subjects were enrolled, 72 (67.3%) were evaluable (36/group).
22                   Eighty-three patients were evaluable: 44 with HCC, 37 with ICC, and two with mixed
23               Eighty-seven participants were evaluable: 54% were female, and the median age was 35 ye
24 84.9% (-2.4%; -6.90 to 2.10); and clinically evaluable, 91.7% and 92.5% (-0.8%; -4.61 to 2.89).
25                     Ten (77%) of 13 patients evaluable after cross-over had stable disease on sunitin
26 ealing rate at 30 days was 66% (33/50; 3 not evaluable) after primary closure, which did not signific
27 cy analyses were carried out on the efficacy evaluable and intention-to-treat populations.
28 re present: coronary anatomy at CTCA was not evaluable and presence of significant CAD at CTCA.
29 Of 573 enrolled patients, 537 were eligible, evaluable, and randomly assigned to an arm with or witho
30                    In all, 186 patients were evaluable, and the primary end point of an 8-week diseas
31                         Of 382 children with evaluable AVT, 212 had idiopathic/familial PAH (IPAH/FPA
32              We analyzed those children with evaluable AVT.
33 al of 45 patients were enrolled; 18 were not evaluable (because of disease progression before radiati
34   One patient was deemed ineligible, and not evaluable, before treatment initiation owing to having n
35 posed and 69 tenofovir-unexposed infants had evaluable BMC measurements.
36                                  Of patients evaluable by imaging, 13 out of 16 (81%) had decreases i
37 llow-up images that were subsequently deemed evaluable by the teledermatologist.
38 nase demonstrated its phosphorylation in the evaluable cases and revealed a good correlation with the
39 ospitals in the database that had 20 or more evaluable cases for the study period.
40 ospitals in the database that had 20 or more evaluable cases for the study period.
41                                       Of all evaluable cases, there was no increased risk of systemic
42 ) and a non-IG gene (MYC-non-IG) in 26 of 50 evaluable cases.
43                               None of the 83 evaluable cerebellar samples showed frequent diffuse Abe
44                                   Only 4% of evaluable cerebrospinal fluid samples had pleocytosis, b
45 treated with daptomycin for VRE-BSI and with evaluable clinical outcomes.
46  604 were retrieved for review, 344 reported evaluable data for 586 individual patients, 43 reported
47 mean age 48.4 +/- 10.7 years) with complete, evaluable data from both normal and tumor-containing bre
48 ata for 586 individual patients, 43 reported evaluable data on 46 patient groups.
49                     Of the 193 patients with evaluable data, 35% had an identifiable hereditary cance
50  pulmonary function completed the study with evaluable data.
51  [range, 22-74 years]; 15 [75%] female) with evaluable data.
52 am from January 2008 through the most recent evaluable date prior to July 2013 were included.
53 ess frequent lambda light chain isotype, and evaluable difference between involved and uninvolved fre
54            Key eligibility criteria included evaluable disease, Eastern Cooperative Group performance
55 e staining of >/=1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemi
56 2 of 5 recipients of Treg cell BMT that were evaluable displayed chimerism in all lineages, including
57          MYC-R was observed in 51/574 (8.9%) evaluable DLBCL cases.
58                                     All nine evaluable during-treatment biopsies had reduced levels o
59 n predict long-term clinical outcome and are evaluable early on, such as the pathologic complete resp
60             A total of 984 participants with evaluable echocardiograms and baseline LF AS (LVSVI </=3
61 et for the EIG proved more difficult (42% of evaluable EIG participants).
62 ent was observed in 37% of participants with evaluable endoscopy results at week 12.
63 cal failure occurred in 58 of 177 (32.8%) of evaluable episodes.
64 ed >/=18 years) with recurrent measurable or evaluable epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fal
65 ethod, with 86% categorical agreement, 91.1% evaluable essential agreement, and no major or very majo
66                                          All evaluable explanted grafts experienced antibody-mediated
67 Two hundred forty-eight of 393 patients were evaluable for a retrospective analysis.
68                           Of the 29 patients evaluable for activity, 19 (66%) achieved an objective r
69 of 101 patients (66.3%; 95% CI, 56.2%-75.4%) evaluable for alopecia in the scalp cooling group vs 0 o
70 c resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled.
71 he 11 included studies, 16,178 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from emergency d
72              A total of 11,017 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from severe seps
73               Among the 27 patients who were evaluable for antitumor activity, the overall response r
74 on-free survival (PFS), and 29 patients were evaluable for best response.
75  patients enrolled, and 22 were eligible and evaluable for dose escalation.
76    Of 24 patients enrolled, 21 patients were evaluable for efficacy end points.
77 ghty-seven patients were registered (85 were evaluable for efficacy).
78 d Oct 8, 2015, we enrolled 92 women; 85 were evaluable for efficacy.
79 randomly assigned; 246 had HA data; 231 were evaluable for efficacy; 84 (34%) had HA-high tumors (ie,
80                               Among 194 eyes evaluable for growth, the rate was 0.43 mm/yr (standard
81 met eligibility criteria, and 570 (86%) were evaluable for health-related quality of life.
82     Results Of 41 enrolled patients, 38 were evaluable for MTD determination.
83 CI, 3.9 to 8.2 months), and 62 patients were evaluable for objective response rate (ORR; 15%; 95% CI,
84  hundred one patients (66 SR and 35 HR) were evaluable for outcome.
85 d 889 patients, with 877 patients clinically evaluable for overall response rates.
86         Sixty-three patients with ccRCC were evaluable for overall survival (median, 28.9 months; 95%
87 les (range, <one to 56 cycles), and 96% were evaluable for primary end points.
88                         Thirty patients were evaluable for progression-free survival (PFS), and 29 pa
89  least one further follow-up assessment were evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes.
90 st one further assessment and were therefore evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes.
91  in each disease cohort) and 80 of whom were evaluable for response (40 in each disease cohort).
92             In 32 relapsed treatment courses evaluable for response after one cycle of chemotherapy,
93      Response endpoints were assessed in the evaluable for response analysis set (ie, all patients wh
94 27, 2014; 11 patients were excluded from the evaluable for response analysis set (n=199) due to absen
95 atients with relapsed or refractory CLL were evaluable for response at 24 weeks.
96                                      36 were evaluable for response by central assessment.
97                            Among 82 patients evaluable for response to first-line therapy, 31 patient
98                      Results Of 263 patients evaluable for response to induction, 127 (100%) of 127 p
99 dFLC level <50 mg/L are currently deemed not evaluable for response to therapy.
100 ong 850 randomly assigned patients, 528 were evaluable for response using the ICE and 605 using the B
101                           Of the 52 patients evaluable for response, none experienced an objective re
102                           Among 157 patients evaluable for response, one complete and six partial res
103                                  In patients evaluable for response, the objective response rates wer
104                               Of 30 patients evaluable for response, two showed partial response, and
105 ompleting at least one cycle of therapy were evaluable for response.
106                    Thirty-five patients were evaluable for response.
107 s, one had stable lymphoma, and two were not evaluable for response.
108 tients with DLBCL were enrolled, and 60 were evaluable for response.
109 ated at maximum-tolerated dose (n = 25) were evaluable for response.
110                   Twenty-three patients were evaluable for response.
111                  Sixteen patients (94%) were evaluable for response; five (29%) experienced a confirm
112  adverse events in the remaining 16 patients evaluable for safety were pain (seven [44%] of 16), hypo
113 ne and 47 assigned placebo, all of whom were evaluable for safety.
114 nts had an hemoglobin A1c and medical record evaluable for the history of diabetes, and 5,635 patient
115 duloxetine and 128 who received placebo were evaluable for the primary analysis.
116 e, 46.8 Gy; range, 28.8 to 50.4 Gy) and were evaluable for the primary end point (median follow-up, 2
117 ty-eight and 77 patients, respectively, were evaluable for the primary end point, 1-month overall res
118 ples from 678 (84%) of 808 participants were evaluable for TILs, including 519 (77%) archival samples
119 ceiving at least one dose of study drug were evaluable for toxicity and all patients completing at le
120       Results Among the 17 patients who were evaluable for toxicity, three were treated at 30 mg/m(2)
121       Twenty-nine patients were enrolled and evaluable for toxicity.
122 e most common reasons that patients were not evaluable for treatment included insufficient tissue, de
123    623 (270, 89, and 264, respectively) were evaluable for week 52 efficacy.
124 ories, 95 (83%) responded or had information evaluable from public records.
125             POD24 occurred in 17% and 23% of evaluable GLSG and BCCA patients, with 5-year OS rates o
126                                        In 46 evaluable HL patients treated with (90)Y-daclizumab ther
127            Pooled data extracted from 63,740 evaluable ICU patients provided an estimated prevalence
128                         Of 176 patients with evaluable images, 68 patients (38%) died during the stud
129 LDL-C level, 92.5 mg/dL [SD, 27.2]), 846 had evaluable imaging at follow-up.
130                                       In the evaluable immunogenicity population (N = 216; mean age,
131                          Mutation status was evaluable in 430 (64.6%) of 666 patients with KRAS exon
132                                Outcomes were evaluable in 444 failure occurred in 187 (42.1%; 95% con
133 ll survival was 47.6 months (95% CI 42.5-not evaluable) in the carfilzomib group versus 40.0 months (
134 acebo group and not reached (95% CI 32.3-not evaluable) in the lenalidomide group.
135 teen studies (1830 PEP initiations) provided evaluable information on 2-drug regimens (zidovudine [ZD
136 , and 10 studies (1755 initiations) provided evaluable information on the third drug, which was usual
137 indings and electroretinography (ERG) on 244 evaluable injections in 63 patients using 30-Hz flicker
138                        The ORR was 52% in 42 evaluable lenalidomide-refractory patients.
139  seen in 83% and phosphorylated S6 in 86% of evaluable lesions (phospho-AKT staining was technically
140 23.4% compared with baseline was found in 70 evaluable lesions of 10 patients, with a median SUVmax o
141 ntion to treat (patients needed at least one evaluable lung density measurement).
142             A total of 206 participants were evaluable (mean age, 49 years; age range, 25-69 years) 1
143 lantation had either no response or were not evaluable, meaning 14 (74% [49-91]) of the 19 patients w
144        Of the 4721 participants, 2715 had an evaluable MRI.
145 hs (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to not evaluable [NE]).
146 parent surveys in a per protocol analysis of evaluable parents.
147                          51 (27%) of the 190 evaluable participants had acute leukoencephalopathy.
148 With median follow-up of 34 months, 15 of 84 evaluable patients (17.9%) progressed.
149                                  Forty-eight evaluable patients (22 women and 26 men; median age, 59.
150                       Up to week 24, 8 of 26 evaluable patients (31%) achieved a >/=35% decrease in s
151 lapsed, and refractory patients, seven of 15 evaluable patients (47%) achieved complete response or c
152                                 Twenty of 33 evaluable patients (61%) had clinical responses at multi
153                                        Of 16 evaluable patients (9 adults and 7 children), 1 had a pa
154        Four DLTs occurred in three of 40 DLT-evaluable patients (diarrhoea and hyperglycaemia in one
155  duration of objective response for efficacy-evaluable patients (N = 26) was 9.1 months (range, 2.8 t
156 (n = 7), and the phase II study enrolled 106 evaluable patients (n = 53 in each arm).
157 was 3.1+/-0.2 g/dl over 12 weeks in efficacy-evaluable patients (n=55).
158 % confidence interval [CI], 73-94) among all evaluable patients (stringent complete response, 12%; co
159                     Thirty-eight (68%) of 56 evaluable patients achieved a CR and seven (13%) achieve
160                       Overall, 14% of the 81 evaluable patients achieved an objective response (OR) a
161                    Five (14%) of 37 response-evaluable patients achieved an objective response (two c
162 ith CD79B and/or MYD88 mutations, and 86% of evaluable patients achieved complete remission with DA-T
163                                  Three of 26 evaluable patients achieved partial remission (11.5%) an
164 hieving a complete response and two of three evaluable patients achieving a partial response had PIK3
165                                       In 297 evaluable patients age ranged from 17 to 88 years (media
166 than those who received WBRT (28 [52%] of 54 evaluable patients assigned to SRS vs 41 [85%] of 48 eva
167 e patients assigned to SRS vs 41 [85%] of 48 evaluable patients assigned to WBRT; difference -33.6% [
168                                In clinically evaluable patients enrolled in a pilot study of uncompli
169                  The 12-month EFS for the 42 evaluable patients enrolled in AOST0221 was 20% (95% CI,
170                                 Twelve of 13 evaluable patients experienced hyperamylasemia higher th
171 d PD, the RP2D was established at 400 mg (15 evaluable patients experienced two DLTs).
172 ups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atez
173  this study, if at least five of 25 response-evaluable patients had an objective response, cabozantin
174                   Twenty-two (31%) of the 70 evaluable patients had an objective responses, including
175                              Four (9%) of 45 evaluable patients had grade 3-4 ototoxicity according t
176                   Twenty-three of 66 (34.8%) evaluable patients had neutrophil autoantibodies, and 6
177              Seven (35%, 95% CI 16-59) of 20 evaluable patients had objective tumour regression.
178                      21 (57%) of 37 response-evaluable patients had stable disease, including those w
179                                The number of evaluable patients in each subgroup is small, particular
180 ry endpoint was objective tumour response in evaluable patients per protocol using Response to Evalua
181 ation of follicular lymphoma (FL) among 2652 evaluable patients prospectively enrolled in the Nationa
182 ant transformation; of these, 16 of 17 (94%) evaluable patients showed (18)F-FET uptake at the time o
183                    We randomized 402 and 393 evaluable patients to the control or clofarabine inducti
184                            Among 50 efficacy-evaluable patients treated at the MTD, the ORR was 90%.
185                                          All evaluable patients underwent (18)F-FLT PET/CT at baselin
186 rved in 91 (n =48 budesonide, n =43 placebo) evaluable patients was 12.5% (95% CI 3-22%) under treatm
187             Overall response rate in the 120 evaluable patients was 25.8% (31 of 120), including 13 c
188                        Median age of the 138 evaluable patients was 58.5 years with a WHO performance
189 g ASS deficiency, the best response among 21 evaluable patients was complete response (CR) in 2 (9.5%
190                                  Overall, 27 evaluable patients were accrued; the median number of pr
191  five maintenance randomized trials in 3,837 evaluable patients were analyzed.
192          From November 2006 to June 2010, 85 evaluable patients were enrolled (male, n = 61; female,
193                                 Twenty-eight evaluable patients were included in the analysis.
194                       In all, 103 of the 512 evaluable patients were PET2 positive.
195 4 months (4 to >/= 8 months) were seen in 12 evaluable patients who received durvalumab plus cedirani
196 ed for at least 6 weeks in seven of the nine evaluable patients who received greater than 1 x 10(6)/m
197           CRs were obtained by four of seven evaluable patients with chemotherapy-refractory DLBCL; t
198  stable disease, including seven (47%) of 15 evaluable patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma.
199 8 (84.5% vs 85.1%), and day 14 in clinically evaluable patients with MRSA in a baseline culture (92.9
200 ve responses were noted in 23 of 42 activity-evaluable patients with NHL given single-agent polatuzum
201 e patient with uveal melanoma and four of 15 evaluable patients with RCC treated at 20 mug/kg (overal
202 aper and pulse treatment on 100 consecutive, evaluable patients with recurrent Clostridium difficile
203 citabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in 730 evaluable patients with resected pancreatic ductal adeno
204                                   Clinically evaluable patients with S. aureus as the sole pathogen o
205                            Among 23 response-evaluable patients with tumor FGFR pathway alterations,
206 plete remission was achieved in 40% (6/15 of evaluable patients) and median event-free survival was 1
207 R4 cohort (three [2%; 90% CI 0.2-4.8] of 121 evaluable patients) than in the MMR cohort (nine [19%; 9
208                        Furthermore, among 19 evaluable patients, 14 (74%) were off CSs.
209                              Results: Of 541 evaluable patients, 156 (28.8%) had ESR1 mutation D538G
210 n patients were ineligible, resulting in 328 evaluable patients, 159 in the experimental arm and 169
211                              Of the first 41 evaluable patients, 28 (68%) achieved a CR, meeting the
212  31.0% (95% CI, 17.6 to 47.1) in 42 response-evaluable patients, 46.4% (95% CI, 27.5 to 66.1) in the
213                                  Of the 2309 evaluable patients, 578 received HF.
214                                      Of 3756 evaluable patients, 591 (16%) received E-CPR and 3165 (8
215                                       Of 173 evaluable patients, 67 (39%; 95% CI, 31% to 46%) regaine
216                                     Among 47 evaluable patients, an objective response rate of 32% wa
217 ells were successfully harvested in 55 of 57 evaluable patients, and 43 of 49 responding patients und
218                      In the ATG group, on 64 evaluable patients, ATG was discontinued 1 (n = 27), 2 (
219                                    In the 13 evaluable patients, correlation (R(2) ) between semiquan
220                                Of 14 cardiac-evaluable patients, eight (57%) met the criteria for car
221 trol were achieved in >/= 21 of the first 41 evaluable patients, everolimus could be recommended for
222                                        Of 17 evaluable patients, four had stable disease for 12 weeks
223                               Overall, in 23 evaluable patients, including six patients with low HER2
224                                       For 34 evaluable patients, median PFS, overall survival, and ob
225                                    In 17,738 evaluable patients, methicillin-resistant S. aureus infe
226                                  Of 15 renal-evaluable patients, nine (60%) met the criteria for rena
227                                    Of the 21 evaluable patients, one (5%) patient had a partial respo
228                         Results Among the 29 evaluable patients, only 31% met Response Evaluation Cri
229                                        In 60 evaluable patients, ORR was 48% (95% confidence interval
230                                      With 80 evaluable patients, results would be promising if 2-year
231                                    In 26 CTC-evaluable patients, taxane-induced decrease in %ARNL (cy
232                                      For all evaluable patients, the confirmed objective response rat
233                                        Among evaluable patients, the confirmed ORR was 10%; disease c
234                       Among 336 eligible and evaluable patients, the median age was 32 years (range,
235                                          For evaluable patients, the most common grade 3 to 4 adverse
236                                     Among 21 evaluable patients, the overall response rate after 1 bl
237                                     Among 38 evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 36.8%:
238 f the interim PET2 scan was performed in 331 evaluable patients, with 271 (82%) PET2-negative and 60
239             Hypoxia was detected in 15 of 20 evaluable patients, with the hypoxic fraction ranging fr
240 ete responses and 8 partial responses) in 30 evaluable patients.
241 all, hematologic response (HR) was 50% in 24 evaluable patients.
242 ution was 213 LR, 138 IR, and 129 HR for 480 evaluable patients.
243 tis), fatigue, and hyponatraemia in 11 of 18 evaluable patients.
244 mates were calculated based on the number of evaluable patients.
245 s, totaling 1047 randomized patients and 856 evaluable patients.
246 om baseline) was achieved in 96% of efficacy-evaluable patients.
247 all response to treatment at 24 weeks in all evaluable patients.
248  response (three categories; P = .036) in 39 evaluable patients.
249  assessments were excluded, resulting in 452 evaluable patients.
250 tumor marker decline was observed in 9 of 11 evaluable patients.
251 MR cohort (nine [19%; 90% CI 9.5-28.0] of 48 evaluable patients; hazard ratio 0.12, 90% CI 0.04-0.37;
252                 Results Of 451 patients with evaluable PD-L1 expression, 344 (76%) had PD-L1-positive
253 l of intention-to-treat (full analysis set), evaluable (per protocol), and safety populations.
254 ipoproteins at baseline (11918 patients with evaluable plasma samples) and 12 months after randomizat
255          Analysis was done on the predefined evaluable population (all randomised patients who did no
256 onse endpoints were assessed in the response-evaluable population (ie, patients with measurable disea
257                      Primary analysis of the evaluable population (n = 39) found that the optimal dos
258                            In the clinically evaluable population (n=498) 217 (84%) of 258 patients i
259 nrollment was initiated in January 2012, and evaluable population analyses for this study were conduc
260 tive brain imaging data and were included in evaluable population analyses.
261 hese children, who therefore constituted the evaluable population and in whom we diagnosed 4091 malar
262 tive, randomized clinical trial featuring an evaluable population conducted at 75 clinical sites.
263                                          The evaluable population included 494 patients with stage 0
264                                   The safety evaluable population included all patients who received
265               A per-protocol analysis of the evaluable population was conducted on clinical outcome d
266                           An analysis of the evaluable population was performed.
267                                  Data of the evaluable population were analyzed February 4, 2004, thr
268                                Data from the evaluable population were analyzed from July 31, 2013, t
269                            In the clinically evaluable population, 199 (77.4%) of 257 participants we
270                              In the efficacy-evaluable population, the overall response rate (ORR) wa
271 r last dose of study drug) in the clinically evaluable population.
272                    Analysis was based on the evaluable population.
273 ion, and 527 were included in the clinically evaluable population.
274 e modified intention-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations (European Medicines Agency guidanc
275    Analyses were done in intent-to-treat and evaluable populations.
276 y modified intention-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations.
277                                        Of 12 evaluable radiological signs, five were found to be sign
278 ed the e-questionnaire of which 692 provided evaluable responses.
279            Of 992 participants enrolled with evaluable results, 22% had culture-confirmed tuberculosi
280 ent-to-treat (primary) and microbiologically evaluable (secondary) populations using a noninferiority
281                                    In 19,630 evaluable serial pairs from 16,076 healthcare workers, t
282 h no major protocol deviations, and provided evaluable serum samples at day 1 and the scheduled timep
283               Over 2 years, 406 MSM provided evaluable specimens every 6 months for >/=2 visits.
284 myosin receptor kinase A was found in all 36 evaluable specimens on the tumor cells; 34 (94%) showed
285                                              Evaluable specimens were collected from 564 MSM and 3029
286  was expressed on MCC tumor cells in 100% of evaluable specimens.
287 ic cellular response in four of six efficacy-evaluable study subjects, providing a base for its furth
288 ected for radioactive decay in all dosimetry-evaluable subjects at 15 min and 4 h were 1.9% and 1.2%
289 tively collected incidence of gasping on all evaluable subjects in a multicenter, randomized, control
290 arly in the lungs, the %ID for all dosimetry-evaluable subjects was 4.9% at 15 min after injection.
291                                           Of evaluable surviving patients, 70% are visually impaired;
292          Two hundred forty-five patients had evaluable T2* data (mean+/-age, 58 [11] years; 76% men).
293 ignificant resources, limiting the number of evaluable therapies.
294  (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET scans visualized 125 evaluable tumor lesions in 22 patients, with a median SU
295 genic RAS mutations were found in 58% of the evaluable tumor samples (38/66) and 49% of the control t
296                                              Evaluable tumors were analyzed for WT1mutation, 1p and 1
297 t reached in the ibrutinib group (95% CI not evaluable) vs 13.3 months (11.3-13.9) in the placebo gro
298 ne and rituximab and 55.2 months (95% CI not evaluable) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and ritux
299      Among 262 patients registered, 249 were evaluable, with 122 women in the O3-FA arm and 127 in th
300 artifacts, only 28 of 30 image datasets were evaluable, with a total of 29 regions of suspected spond

WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。
 
Page Top