ライフサイエンスコーパス: ineligible

1 therapy (BCT ) who were initially considered ineligible.

2 ng wounds or active bleeding conditions were ineligible.

3 ion, or > two prior anticancer regimens were ineligible.

4 Advanced therapeutic treatment was ineligible.

5 Five participants became ineligible.

6 2006; four patients canceled, and four were ineligible.

7 reened, of whom 1,038 (23.2%) were treatment ineligible.

8 roL, or history of stem-cell transplant were ineligible.

9 ighty patients were enrolled, and three were ineligible.

10 to dexamethasone alone; eight patients were ineligible.

11 seven patients were accrued; one patient was ineligible.

12 s with lymph node or distant metastases were ineligible.

13 endered the majority of the study population ineligible.

14 an additional 10% of the patient population ineligible.

15 ber 1995; two of them were later shown to be ineligible.

16 t otherwise eligible for hospice is rendered ineligible.

17 therapy for recurrence or prior taxanes were ineligible.

18 crued over 4.5 years; 89 patients (13%) were ineligible.

19 One patient was ineligible.

20 Of the registered patients, 38 were ineligible.

21 ) trial; of these, nine patients were deemed ineligible.

22 astatic urothelial cancer who were cisplatin ineligible.

23 ated for refractory or relapsed disease were ineligible.

24 revious BRAF or MEK inhibitor treatment were ineligible.

25 tests (not explained by prescriptions) were ineligible.

26 GA use during a 1-year look-back period were ineligible.

27 atients enrolled, 34 women withdrew, 21 were ineligible, 12 underwent ALND only, and 689 had SLN surg

28 ntial donor calls, 92 (11.6%) were medically ineligible, 326 (41.1%) voluntarily did not proceed or a

29 , and 122, to receive no AM (one patient was ineligible); 72% received AM per protocol or with a mino

30 10.6% (n=724) of SHIFT-type patients became ineligible, 77.3% (n=4188) and 77.3% (n=5287) remained i

31 ion group were withdrawn because they became ineligible after allocation.

32 One patient with thymic carcinoma was deemed ineligible after enrolment and did not receive protocol

33 patients eligible at standard assessment but ineligible after MR imaging was 11% (95% confidence inte

34 on, mammography, and/or ultrasonography) but ineligible after MR imaging was a study outcome.

35 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (3

36 mised allocation but excluded patients found ineligible after randomisation.

37 e candidates to undergo PBI, was found to be ineligible after undergoing MR imaging.

38 One patient was ineligible (alanine aminotransferase concentration was a

39 entered this trial; four patients (7%) were ineligible and 13 (23%) did not receive any chemotherapy

40 Over time, a minority of patients became ineligible and an even smaller minority became eligible.

41 2%, 77-87) in the ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant cohort.

42 on-responders and ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant patients received open-label d

43 on-responder, and ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant patients, and was well tolerat

44 sponders, and 235 ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant patients.

45 ders, and 16 (7%) ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant patients; adverse events leadi

46 patients were enrolled onto S8993; five were ineligible and one received no therapy.

47 Ineligible and potentially eligible patients had a highe

48 er the sepsis protocol or usual care, 3 were ineligible and the remaining 209 completed the study and

49 We excluded five episodes as ineligible and three because of inadequate documentation

50 Excluding 11 ineligible and two eligible patients without follow-up d

51 n the pregabalin group were determined to be ineligible and were excluded from the analyses.

52 ble, 25% were potentially eligible, 19% were ineligible, and 12% were deferred.

53 6 participants screened, 78 were found to be ineligible, and 18 declined participation.

54 Twenty-six were ineligible, and 27 were randomized (2:1) to FUS thalamot

55 , 77.3% (n=4188) and 77.3% (n=5287) remained ineligible, and 4.6% (n=252) and 4.9% (n=335) of non-SHI

56 option to recipients who would be otherwise ineligible, and determine its impact on expanding the do

57 One patient was deemed ineligible, and not evaluable, before treatment initiati

58 populations, including T-DM1 eligible, T-DM1 ineligible, and T-DM1 relapsed/refractory.

59 erapy based on measured CrCl would be deemed ineligible at present, potentially affecting survival ou

60 VRd group and 31 in the Rd group were deemed ineligible based mainly on missing, insufficient, or ear

61 However, six of 29 households originally ineligible because of gender were eligible on recontact,

62 r primary ICD implantation, 304 (67.9%) were ineligible because of left ventricular ejection fraction

63 ne group and five in the control group) were ineligible because of pre-existing metastases and were t

64 hain (AL) amyloidosis, but many patients are ineligible because of the extent of their disease, and t

65 Of 200 hospitals, 7 hospitals were ineligible because they did not have at least 1 pediatri

66 About half the potential participants were ineligible because they had received systemic glucocorti

67 HHs with a child aged 6-23 months, 16% were ineligible because they had resided in the neighborhood

68 9078 women were ineligible because they had undergone a hysterectomy and

69 Of 183 patients, four were rendered ineligible before treatment was initiated.

70 ad by the site investigator, were considered ineligible by the central reader.

71 After excluding ineligible cases, 249 patients with PACG were included i

72 1.79 (95% CI, 0.58-4.18); and for the HAART-ineligible category, 3.66 (95% CI, 2.86-4.61).

73 250 cells/microL, HAART received), and HAART ineligible (CD4 cell count of 250 cells/microL).

74 5% CI, 48.3%-61.5%) in rotavirus vaccine age-ineligible children to 20.0% (95% CI, 12.4%-30.4%) in ag

75 sease trends in vaccine-eligible and vaccine-ineligible children.

76 the previous 4 years and to cases in vaccine-ineligible children.

77 marrow autografts administered to allograft-ineligible chronic myelogenous leukemia patients.

78 Because of incomplete, questionable, or ineligible data, 57 190 wounds were not included.

79 id not receive study treatment because of an ineligible diagnosis.

80 Blacks were more likely to be ineligible due to neutropenia (14% versus 3%, P < 0.001)

81 ever, substantial numbers of patients remain ineligible due to the lack of expression of the restrict

82 Twenty-two (8.7%) were ineligible following centralized pathology review.

83 Among 10 patients ineligible for (no donor or older age) or refusing allog

84 e had large vessel occlusion strokes but are ineligible for (or refractory to) intravenous tissue pla

85 Those patients who were ineligible for acute reperfusion, had no cardiogenic sho

86 been identified for the many STEMI patients ineligible for acute reperfusion.

87 studies have shown that patients previously ineligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation can

88 but benefits were also reported in patients ineligible for alteplase treatment.

89 treatment options for stage I NSCLC patients ineligible for anatomic lobectomy.

90 All were ineligible for anatomic lobectomy; of those receiving SB

91 ineligible for, previously intolerant of, or ineligible for and intolerant of peginterferon alfa plus

92 was significantly higher than among children ineligible for ART (incidence rate ratio: 8.20; 95% CI:3

93 Among children ineligible for ART at enrollment, 6 children died (morta

94 yeloma (NDMM) >/=65 years of age or who were ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation.

95 f induction therapy for patients eligible or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation.

96 nts with relapsed and refractory HL who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASC

97 tients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation.

98 tive (ER+ and/or PgR+) primary breast cancer ineligible for breast-conserving surgery were randomly a

99 after TMR in 8 patients with class IV angina ineligible for CABG or PTCA.

100 tients with end-stage heart failure who were ineligible for cardiac transplantation to receive a left

101 and as destination therapy in those who are ineligible for cardiac transplantation.

102 in inotrope-dependent heart failure patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation.

103 nts with tumor burdens of >1% are considered ineligible for chemotherapy that necessitates stem cell

104 with advanced urothelial cancer (UC) who are ineligible for cisplatin, outcomes remain poor.

105 These comorbidities usually render patients ineligible for clinical trials and enormous uncertainty

106 ely to have medical histories that make them ineligible for clinical trials because of protocol exclu

107 ents with diseases treatable by HCT who were ineligible for conventional myeloablative allogeneic HCT

108 ients with hematologic malignancies who were ineligible for conventional transplantations because of

109 ronary artery disease, 218 (22%) were deemed ineligible for coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

110 in patients with refractory angina who were ineligible for coronary revascularization.

111 tension were greater among patients with OSA ineligible for CPAP therapy (1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.75), a

112 .34 (95% CI, 2.85-3.82) in patients with OSA ineligible for CPAP therapy, 5.84 (95% CI, 4.82-6.86) in

113 h symptomatic follicular lymphoma considered ineligible for curative irradiation.

114 Compared with people ineligible for DACA, the introduction of DACA was associ

115 histology but was cyclin D1 negative and was ineligible for efficacy.

116 itrectomy is recommended in patients who are ineligible for endoresection.

117 n half of all HCV-infected patients would be ineligible for enrollment.

118 Patients with LVEF >40%, ineligible for EPS, were followed up as control subjects

119 nscaval access for TAVR in patients who were ineligible for femoral artery access and had high or pro

120 and/or have comorbidities that may make them ineligible for fludarabine-based treatment.

121 cil may improve outcome for patients who are ineligible for fludarabine-based treatments.

122 12/719) and follow-up (375/441; 171 men were ineligible for follow-up).

123 nt HCV recurrence but could make the patient ineligible for HCV(+) livers.

124 atients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation, a small, intraperi

125 atients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation.

126 Patients were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy, which would put t

127 older adults who are eligible for and those ineligible for high-dose therapy with autologous stem-ce

128 HIV-1/HSV-2 coinfected pregnant Kenyan women ineligible for highly active antiretroviral therapy (CD4

129 CV) genotype 1 (GT-1) infection for patients ineligible for IFN.

130 This approach might be safer in children ineligible for intense regimens to spare the potential c

131 relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma ineligible for intensive chemotherapy or stem-cell trans

132 atients with acute myeloid leukemia who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

133 asurable lesion to be eligible, and who were ineligible for intensive chemotherpy or stem-cell transp

134 roke patients within the t-PA window who are ineligible for IV t-PA but have a large vascular occlusi

135 Those deemed ineligible for listing for OLT must be managed by medica

136 LAA exclusion devices is lacking in patients ineligible for long-term OAC.

137 dividuals with life-limiting illness who are ineligible for long-term oxygen therapy.

138 Persons ineligible for low-income subsidies receiving the standa

139 progression significant enough to make them ineligible for mechanical thrombectomy at arrival.

140 public health insurance to children who are ineligible for Medicaid yet unable to afford private hea

141 nd an increase from 74% to 92% among persons ineligible for Medicare.

142 ation (HCT) have been developed for patients ineligible for myeloablative conditioning.

143 e globulin RIC regimen in pediatric patients ineligible for myeloablative transplantation, we complet

144 s in pediatric patients in remission who are ineligible for myeloablative transplantation.

145 increase overall life expectancy in patients ineligible for open repair, but can reduce aneurysm-rela

146 VAR reduces mortality in patients physically ineligible for open repair.

147 Patients had classical HL and were ineligible for or declined frontline chemotherapy.

148 All were either ineligible for or nonresponsive to photodynamic therapy,

149 ical response or on patients who were either ineligible for or refused to undergo abdominoperineal re

150 bocytopenic patients with AML or MDS who are ineligible for other treatment and who are not receiving

151 23 low-risk patients who were psychosocially ineligible for outpatient management (no access to careg

152 sians were more likely than Caucasians to be ineligible for participation in the clinical trial (46.5

153 ieved high scores by classifying patients as ineligible for quality indicators (exception reporting).

154 ny electronic information and were therefore ineligible for randomisation.

155 ent Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Ineligible for Reperfusion (TETAMI) study were to demons

156 vely gathered data on STEMI patients who are ineligible for reperfusion may help optimize their treat

157 ing >12 hours are generally considered to be ineligible for reperfusion therapy, and there are curren

158 Patients with STEMI ineligible for reperfusion were randomized to enoxaparin

159 on therapy, and some of them are considered "ineligible for reperfusion." Spontaneous reperfusion and

160 ble cardioverter defibrillator, and who were ineligible for revascularisation procedures were randoml

161 In patients who are ineligible for revascularization procedures, there are f

162 Indirect protection of children who are age-ineligible for rotavirus vaccine has also been observed

163 recommend that patients should not be deemed ineligible for RT based on age alone, although a short l

164 Fifty patients (38%) were ineligible for S-ICD because of screening failure in eve

165 The study may have included people ineligible for screening because of previous colectomy,

166 At least 2.4% of the cohort would be ineligible for smallpox vaccination because of active sk

167 a promising alternative for patients who are ineligible for standard intravenous thrombolytic therapy

168 o had relapsed or refractory disease or were ineligible for standard treatments; had platelet counts

169 nosed patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation.

170 th newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation.

171 rd therapy for patients with myeloma who are ineligible for stem-cell transplantation.

172 Per protocol no patients were ineligible for subsequent targeted biologic therapy base

173 ion costs may vary substantially for persons ineligible for such subsidies, and pharmaceutical compan

174 of the relevant molecular targets are deemed ineligible for such targeted approaches.

175 Patients ineligible for surgery (n = 80) or whose lesions were po

176 ng patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis ineligible for surgery.

177 basal cell carcinoma had to have been deemed ineligible for surgery.

178 ity of life of patients with aortic stenosis ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

179 severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

180 carcinoma (HCC) patients, particularly those ineligible for surgical resection or liver transplant.

181 etastases refractory to systemic therapy and ineligible for surgical resection.

182 the clinic may potentially convert patients ineligible for targeted imaging and therapy to eligible

183 ents with inoperable aortic stenosis who are ineligible for TF TAVR.

184 dvantage plans incorrectly excluded 10.3% as ineligible for the HEDIS high-risk prescribing measure.

185 ential for harm-eg, when 30% of patients are ineligible for the new regimen because of second-line dr

186 ders hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients ineligible for the only potential curative options for t

187 rs, because most of these patients have been ineligible for the pivotal trials of adjuvant trastuzuma

188 After exclusion of patients identified as ineligible for the planned treatment at the time of surg

189 with severe cardiac amyloid infiltration are ineligible for the preferred treatment of melphalan chem

190 substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data.

191 treatments are usually expanded to patients ineligible for the trial.

192 ies rendered 17.1% of the patient population ineligible for the trials.

193 rable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are ineligible for thermal ablative techniques.

194 Many patients are ineligible for this approach because of advanced age, co

195 ther acute coronary syndromes are considered ineligible for thrombolysis and therefore are not afford

196 uspected acute myocardial infarction who are ineligible for thrombolysis.

197 iage angiography in acute coronary syndromes ineligible for thrombolytic therapy.

198 h non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who were considered ineligible for total-body irradiation because of older a

199 ernative for patients who would otherwise be ineligible for transplant because of age or comorbidity.

200 evaluation and after being accepted or found ineligible for transplant).

201 erse events of death, delisting, or becoming ineligible for transplant; and (2) transplant rate.

202 ope-dependent heart failure patients who are ineligible for transplantation have a high short-term mo

203 We randomly assigned patients who were ineligible for transplantation to receive MPR-R (nine 4-

204 isone (MP) in patients with myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation was maintained after 5 ye

205 atients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for transplantation, in a 2:1 ratio, to under

206 th newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation, with the greatest benefi

207 atients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for transplantation.

208 lternative first-line treatment for patients ineligible for transplantation.

209 atients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for transplantation.

210 disproportionately affect patients who were ineligible for treatment (Veterans Affairs HR=2.35, CI 1

211 entation, including among older children age-ineligible for vaccination, suggesting indirect protecti

212 der (55%, 0.45, 0.22-0.91, p=0.003) who were ineligible for vaccination.

213 onvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients ineligible for warfarin therapy.

214 emic attack) score >/=1, who were considered ineligible for warfarin.

215 apeutic option for patients considered to be ineligible for, and to mitigate mortality and morbidity

216 interferon alfa plus ribavirin; or medically ineligible for, previously intolerant of, or ineligible

217 ere treated prior to the availability of, or ineligible for, telaprevir were the comparator group.

218 were 458 (28%) of the 1,654 patients deemed "ineligible" for reperfusion, mostly because of a contrai

219 ew directly after randomisation and two were ineligible, giving a total sample of 333 patients (166 i

220 Recontact of gender-ineligible households may improve completeness of random

221 At thoracotomy, patients were deemed ineligible if an unanticipated pneumonectomy was indicat

222 At thoracotomy, patients were deemed ineligible if an unanticipated pneumonectomy was indicat

223 were down-classified from statin eligible to ineligible if imaging revealed no coronary artery calciu

224 Patients were ineligible if there was a change in NIHSS of four or mor

225 Patients were ineligible if they had bilateral breast cancer or any ot

226 Infants were ineligible if they had major congenital anomalies or sev

227 Patients were ineligible if they had received anticancer therapy or su

228 Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central

229 Patients were ineligible if they received prior paclitaxel or gemcitab

230 Participants were ineligible if they were clinically critical (eg, suicide

231 d a reduction in K6 score compared with DACA-ineligible individuals (adjusted incident risk ratio 0.7

232 sparities between SNAP participants and SNAP-ineligible individuals, by approximately 8% (10 DPPs per

233 esponder cohort, and 192 (82%, 77-87) in the ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant coh

234 e group; 11 (5%) non-responders, and 16 (7%) ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant pat

235 Non-responders and ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant pat

236 rates in treatment-naive, non-responder, and ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant pat

237 nded treatment), 205 non-responders, and 235 ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant pat

238 DSA) offers two options for interferon (IFN)-ineligible/intolerant individuals with genotype 1 infect

239 ype 1 CHC than 24 weeks of SOF/RBV among IFN-ineligible/intolerant individuals, supporting the AASLD/

240 ine chemotherapy for patients with cisplatin-ineligible locally advanced or metastatic urothelial car

241 rdiac transplantation, but when patients are ineligible, long-term mechanical circulatory support may

242 Thirteen patients in both arms were ineligible, mainly as a result of a good prognosis of GC

243 metry (MFC) to monitor MRD in 162 transplant-ineligible MM patients enrolled in the PETHEMA/GEM2010MA

244 essable for response, as three were declared ineligible on central pathology review and one was not a

245 entricular ejection fraction </=35% but were ineligible on the basis of clinical guideline criteria.

246 Three patients were ineligible on the basis of pathologic review (lung cance

247 One hundred four infants who became ineligible or died after randomization but before nurser

248 ewly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma who were ineligible or not considered for stem-cell transplantati

249 atment option for patients who are cisplatin-ineligible or not suitable candidates for chemotherapy.

250 For those patients that are either ineligible or relapse after transplant, the treatment op

251 One ineligible patient was excluded.

252 Among the 56 treated patients (including one ineligible patient), 31 (55%) experienced grade 3 to 4 t

253 Ineligible patients (n = 5) and those with combined LOH

254 itation differences between DCP-eligible vs -ineligible patients and among stratified demographic and

255 When lytic-ineligible patients and patients presenting in cardiogen

256 d with caution because of the high number of ineligible patients and the limited power of the study t

257 Ineligible patients included those with deliberately pre

258 l transplantation (ASCT), instead of ASCT in ineligible patients or as salvage.

259 When ineligible patients were excluded, the analysis of all e

260 Cisplatin-ineligible patients who might have been previously treat

261 -arm, phase 2 study (KEYNOTE-052), cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial cancer who

262 ety of first-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectab

263 ffer an advantage over VD in transplantation-ineligible patients with myeloma treated in US community

264 bortezomib-based regimens in transplantation-ineligible patients with myeloma.

265 itinib on a compassionate-use basis to trial-ineligible patients with RCC from countries where regula

266 ity and acceptable tolerability in cisplatin-ineligible patients with urothelial cancer, most of whom

267 access to the aorta allows TAVR in otherwise ineligible patients, and may offer a new access strategy

268 tumor effects can be performed in previously ineligible patients, largely in an outpatient setting.

269 Among OHT-ineligible patients, mean life expectancy with inotrope-

270 In cisplatin-ineligible patients, radical cystectomy alone is recomme

271 ignificantly improves life expectancy in OHT-ineligible patients.

272 planned number of patients and included 7.7% ineligible patients.

273 or metastatic urothelial cancer in cisplatin-ineligible patients.

274 York Heart Association class IV, transplant-ineligible patients.

275 There were 13 ineligible patients; thus, 140 patients in each arm were

276 ans had incompatible blood types (P=0.01) or ineligible recipients (26.7% vs. 14.4%, P<0.01).

277 Sixteen patients were ineligible, resulting in 328 evaluable patients, 159 in

278 n the 12-week programme had been found to be ineligible shortly after randomisation and were excluded

279 Five participants were deemed ineligible shortly after randomization and were disconti

280 nd one who received supportive therapy) were ineligible, so were not included in the intention-to-tre

281 The rate was higher in CREST ineligible than in CREST eligible patients (11.4% versus

282 Two were ineligible, therefore results are presented for 24 eligi

283 s available for analysis; four patients were ineligible (three from the SRS group and one from the ob

284 11-year period, 10 of whom were found to be ineligible; thus, 154 were assigned to receive surgery a

285 We measured (1) conversion rates from BCT-ineligible to BCT-eligible, (2) surgical choices in BCT

286 prospectively a 42% conversion rate from BCT-ineligible to BCT-eligible, resulting in a 14% absolute

287 limitations that result from patients being ineligible to drive.

288 admitted during 2002-2005, 29 (55%) were age-ineligible to have received vaccine, 12 (23%) had not be

289 Among 1071 persons in 43 centers, 62 were ineligible to participate in the study, 72 did not enter

290 ses, and correlates of mortality in patients ineligible to participate in transcatheter aortic valve

291 who were age >/=65 years or transplantation-ineligible to receive induction with melphalan-prednison

292 urativa failing adalimumab therapy, or those ineligible to receive it, remain a population with an un

293 Eighteen of 189 recruited patients were ineligible to take part in the study.

294 s in patients with urothelial cancer who are ineligible ("unfit") for cisplatin chemotherapy.

295 omographic scanning or lymphangiography were ineligible unless histologic analysis showed that there

296 ed for toxicity; 2 patients discovered to be ineligible were excluded from response assessment.

297 Thirteen patients (one ineligible) were enrolled in phase I of the study.

298 Two hundred seventy-three women (10 ineligible) were registered.

299 eclined vaccination, and 4 patients who were ineligible, were analyzed.

300 recurrent disease (one enrolled patient was ineligible with stage IIIA disease).