ライフサイエンスコーパス: objective response

1 pendent review committee had an intracranial objective response.

2 in the efficacy-evaluable population had an objective response.

3 Twelve (63%) of 19 evaluable patients had an objective response.

4 ted with crizotinib as their only TKI had an objective response.

5 by the independent review committee, had an objective response.

6 I 49.7-68.7) of 111 patients had a confirmed objective response.

7 tion of PD-L1-positive patients achieving an objective response.

8 CI 28.3-59.0) of 44 patients had a confirmed objective response.

9 9) of 40 PD-L1-positive patients achieved an objective response.

10 %) of 60 assessable patients had a confirmed objective response.

11 the 13 patients with Ewing's sarcoma had an objective response.

12 o patients with leiomyosarcoma (n=10) had an objective response.

13 93 (61% [95% CI 53-69]) patients achieved an objective response.

14 Nine of 16 patients (56%) achieved an objective response.

15 core of 10% or more had a centrally assessed objective response.

16 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response.

17 uded the proportion of patients achieving an objective response.

18 MSI-H/MMR-D status were not associated with objective response.

19 5% CI 26-46) of 104 patients had a confirmed objective response.

20 th relapsed and/or refractory MM can achieve objective responses.

21 le patients in the basket expansion achieved objective responses.

22 and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422

23 and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546

24 d as stable disease lasting >=6 months or an objective response (3.4% vs. 45%; p < 0.001), a signific

25 ; thus overall 18 of 57 patients achieved an objective response (32%, 95% CI 20-45).

26 eceived tafasitamab plus lenalidomide had an objective response: 34 (43%; 32-54) had a complete respo

27 expressing tumours, ten patients achieved an objective response (43%, 95% CI 23.2-65.5).

28 alysis involving all 74 patients, 85% had an objective response; 59% had a complete response.

29 l responses; thus, nine patients achieved an objective response (60.0%; 95% CI 32.3-83.7).

30 ents in the primary efficacy analysis had an objective response; 67% (95% CI, 53 to 78) had a complet

31 The primary end point was an objective response (a complete or partial response), as

32 At 36 months, investigator-assessed objective response according to immune-related response

33 The proportion of patients with an objective response according to investigator assessment

34 -12.8), ten (20%) of 49 patients achieved an objective response according to Response Evaluation Crit

35 tcome was the proportion of patients with an objective response according to the Response Evaluation

36 The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response across all histologies was 30 (27%, 9

37 demonstrated clinically significant, durable objective response activity in patients with RAI-refract

38 ot associated with PFS, overall survival, or objective response after CPI.

39 with HER2-positive breast cancer achieved an objective response (all partial responses) according to

40 coma, five (12%; 4-26) of 42 patients had an objective response (all partial responses) and 14 (33%;

41 en (26%; 95% CI 13-42) of 39 patients had an objective response (all partial responses) by 6 months;

42 receptor-negative breast cancer achieved an objective response (all partial responses).

43 At 6 months, four patients (5%) achieved an objective response (all partial responses).

44 s the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response among those with FGFR2 fusions or rea

45 the all-patients-as-treated population, and objective response, analysed for the full-analysis set.

46 acy endpoint was proportion of patients with objective response, analysed here as investigator-assess

47 The primary end point was objective response, analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis

48 d R-pina, 25 (60%, 95% CI 43-74) achieved an objective response and 11 (26%, 95% CI 14-42) achieved a

49 4 patients achieved an investigator-assessed objective response and 51 (69%, 57-79) patients had dise

50 osarcoma, a dual primary endpoint of 6-month objective response and 6-month non-progression was asses

51 ndpoints, the proportion of patients with an objective response and median duration of response, were

52 ation with standard-dose ipilimumab improves objective response and progression-free survival compare

53 Data on objective response and quality of life were encouraging.

54 e would result in an increased proportion of objective responses and pathological complete responses.

55 27.1 months (IQR 25.7-28.8), 84 (83%) had an objective response, and 59 (58%) had a complete response

56 29) of 370 patients had a centrally assessed objective response, and as of Sept 1, 2016 (data cutoff)

57 ted with axicabtagene ciloleucel achieved an objective response, and complete responses were noted in

58 d R-pola, 21 (54%, 95% CI 37-70) achieved an objective response, and eight (21%, 95% CI 9-36) achieve

59 d R-pola, 14 (70%, 95% CI 46-88) achieved an objective response, and nine (45%, 95% CI 23-68) achieve

60 d R-pina, 13 (62%, 95% CI 38-82) achieved an objective response, and one (5%, 95% CI 0.1-24) achieved

61 3%; 95% confidence interval = 45-92%) had an objective response, and six (40%; 95% confidence interva

62 The primary endpoint was objective response as assessed by local investigators in

63 vity (proportion of patients who achieved an objective response as assessed by the investigators).

64 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response as per Response Evaluation Criteria i

65 any of the following outcomes: radiological objective response (as assessed by Response Evaluation C

66 The proportion of patients achieving an objective response assessed per RECIST version 1.1 by in

67 Patients achieving an objective response at any time during the anti-PD1 treat

68 ne (15% [95% CI 7-26]) of 62 patients had an objective response at data cutoff (Sept 17, 2018).

69 lysis was the proportion of patients with an objective response at week 24 as assessed by investigato

70 1 (39.6% [95% CI 26.5-54.0]) patients had an objective response at week 24.

71 s the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response based on investigator-reported tumour

72 e the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response by centrally assessed breast MRI and

73 Secondary endpoints included objective response by immune-related response criteria i

74 The primary activity endpoint was objective response by intention-to-treat analysis.

75 le soft tissue disease, 15 (56%) achieved an objective response by RECIST 1.1.

76 le soft-tissue disease, 15 (56%) achieved an objective response by RECIST 1.1.

77 ive of 25 response-evaluable patients had an objective response, cabozantinib would be considered a p

78 The primary end point was the rate of objective response (calculated as the combined rates of

79 point was the proportion of patients with an objective response (centrally assessed), defined as a co

80 ression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and sa

81 lumab resulted in more patients achieving an objective response compared with chemotherapy regimens i

82 ints were the proportion of patients with an objective response (complete or partial response accordi

83 point was the percentage of patients with an objective response (complete or partial response) as ass

84 point was the proportion of patients with an objective response (complete or partial response) as per

85 Patients with an objective response (complete or partial) exhibited a sig

86 was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (complete response or partial respons

87 The primary endpoint was objective response (complete responses and partial respo

88 The primary endpoint was overall objective response confirmed by blinded independent revi

89 The primary endpoint was objective response, defined as complete and partial remi

90 The primary endpoint was objective response, defined as the proportion of patient

91 The proportion of patients with an objective response did not differ significantly between

92 ent than BSI, indicating their potential for objective response evaluation.

93 and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response for phase 2, and key secondary endpoi

94 n the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response from the addition of taselisib to end

95 The other seven patients with objective responses had microsatellite stable tumors.

96 w-up were retreated with vismodegib, with an objective response in 23 (objective response rate, 85%;

97 a higher proportion of patients achieving an objective response in all randomly assigned patients (66

98 n: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared wi

99 uded the proportion of patients achieving an objective response in the intention-to-treat population,

100 l, and the proportion of patients who had an objective response in those categorised as at intermedia

101 aintenance pembrolizumab leads to additional objective responses in patients achieving at least stabl

102 as shown preclinical antitumour activity and objective responses in patients with epithelial malignan

103 b govitecan-hziy was associated with durable objective responses in patients with heavily pretreated

104 acizumab demonstrated safety and resulted in objective responses in patients with variant histology R

105 (5%) of 40 patients with bone sarcoma had an objective response, including one (5%) of 22 patients wi

106 22 (12% [95% CI 8-18]) achieved a confirmed objective response, including one complete response and

107 %) of 60 assessable patients had a confirmed objective response, including ten (38%) of 26 patients c

108 wo (31%) of the 70 evaluable patients had an objective responses, including 4 complete responses and

109 inutuximab, nine (53%; 95% CI 29.2-76.7) had objective responses, including four partial responses an

110 INTERPRETATION: Significant improvement in objective response lasting at least 4 months was seen wi

111 as shown higher proportions of patients with objective response, longer response duration, and longer

112 Objective responses occurred in (29 [60%] of 48) patient

113 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5;

114 20%) patients had a partial response, for an objective response of 20% (95% CI 6.8-40.7), and 13 (52%

115 57%; 95% CI 43.2-70.8) of 54 patients had an objective response, of which four (7%) were complete res

116 14% of the 81 evaluable patients achieved an objective response (OR) and 31% percent showed >/=50% de

117 Coprimary end points were objective response (OR) and progression-free survival at

118 The objective response (OR) rate (Modified Response Evaluati

119 The primary endpoint was objective response (OR), defined as a >=20% reduction of

120 oportion of patients with a stratum-specific objective response (partial response or complete respons

121 cluded the proportion of patients who had an objective response per RECIST 1.1 and was assessed in al

122 ndent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poo

123 val, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat p

124 associated with a significant improvement in objective response rate (31% vs 0%; P = .04) but not cli

125 At the end of therapy, the objective response rate (95% CI) per independent radiolo

126 The end points included safety; the objective response rate (according to Response Evaluatio

127 se events, dose-limiting toxicities, and the objective response rate (assessed per Lugano criteria);

128 Objective response rate (confirmed) of 11.3% (n = 16/142

129 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST (versi

130 Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survi

131 ree survival (PFS), and odds ratios (OR) for objective response rate (ORR) and serious adverse events

132 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks (ORR(Wk24)); s

133 The objective response rate (ORR) for single-agent anti-prog

134 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) in patients with 1% or mor

135 ent selinexor showed modest efficacy with an objective response rate (ORR) of 4% and clinical benefit

136 mab plus dabrafenib and trametinib led to an objective response rate (ORR) of 78%, including 44% comp

137 To evaluate the safety and objective response rate (ORR) of imiquimod in combinatio

138 rimary end points were investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per the Lugano 2014 criter

139 The objective response rate (ORR) to pembrolizumab was 56% (

140 5 mg/kg, the investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 43%, and duration of r

141 Adjusting for number of doses, objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher i

142 e survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were assessed according to

143 l (OS), time to worsening of pain (TWP), and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated.

144 in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate

145 ts included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

146 The evaluated clinical outcomes were: objective response rate (ORR), immune-related adverse ev

147 Secondary end points included tumor objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), an

148 Objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, and saf

149 Secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival

150 points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), R0 resection rate, grade

151 Purpose To evaluate objective response rate (ORR), safety, and survival afte

152 The primary end points were safety and objective response rate (ORR).

153 Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR).

154 The primary end point was RECIST 1.1 objective response rate (ORR).

155 The primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR).

156 icantly better progression-free survival and objective response rate (ORR).

157 The primary end point was centrally assessed objective response rate (ORR); secondary end points incl

158 The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); the null hypothesis (<= 5

159 Confirmed intracranial objective response rate (ORR-IC) was evaluated in patien

160 In the overall cohort, the objective response rate (ORR; iRECIST(14)) was 20%.

161 Key efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer

162 ow significantly effectiveness and safety in objective response rate (P < 0.001), survival time exten

163 nd tolerability for the escalation phase and objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria In

164 Secondary objectives included confirmed objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in

165 mplete response and seven partial responses (objective response rate 19%, 95% CI 9-34).

166 espond to immunotherapy remains modest (~15% objective response rate across indications), as tumours

167 In this study, we evaluate objective response rate after therapy with the gamma-sec

168 hase 2 trial of selumetinib to determine the objective response rate among patients with plexiform ne

169 Efficacy end points included objective response rate and modified progression-free su

170 Objective response rate and progression-free survival pe

171 also observed with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression

172 s showed a good safety profile and promising objective response rate and time to progression when use

173 ither margetuximab or pembrolizumab) and the objective response rate as assessed by the investigator

174 endpoint was the 39-patient primary cohort's objective response rate at week 15 (ORR(W15)).

175 cohort expansion, the primary objective was objective response rate at week 24 (ORR(week 24)) at the

176 The primary endpoint was objective response rate based on the 2007 International

177 The confirmed objective response rate by independent central review wa

178 Objective response rate by modified WHO criteria was 42%

179 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate by RECIST in cohort one.

180 The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per i

181 Primary endpoints were confirmed objective response rate in all patients who received the

182 roposed as the major contributor to the high objective response rate in anti-PD-1 therapy.

183 The primary end points were safety and objective response rate in KEYNOTE-013 and objective res

184 d objective response rate in KEYNOTE-013 and objective response rate in KEYNOTE-170.

185 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate measured according to the Respon

186 Among 47 evaluable patients, an objective response rate of 32% was observed, including 1

187 or fewer prior lines of therapy (n = 23), an objective response rate of 39%, PFS of 6.7 months, and d

188 all cell lung cancer resulted in a confirmed objective response rate of 42% in the first 12 evaluable

189 vanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC), with an objective response rate of 65%, including a 32% complete

190 l treated patients (n = 61) was 61%, with an objective response rate of 82%.

191 of AFM13 with pembrolizumab demonstrated an objective response rate of 88% at the highest treatment

192 The primary end point was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1.

193 The primary end point was objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria

194 Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria

195 primary endpoint was independently confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria

196 onger progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase

197 The objective response rate to FOLFOXIRI-Bev was 69% (95% CI

198 At a median follow-up of 12 months, the objective response rate to ipilimumab and nivolumab was

199 The objective response rate to pembrolizumab was 23% (nine p

200 ients with nonenhancing glioma (n = 35), the objective response rate was 2.9%, with 1 partial respons

201 The objective response rate was 20% (95% CI 15-26) in patien

202 Objective response rate was 20.1% with selumetinib + doc

203 Objective response rate was 21% overall and 27% in the R

204 At 17.2 months' median follow-up, the objective response rate was 23% (95% CI 16 to 31), the c

205 The objective response rate was 23% with pembrolizumab and 1

206 ; n = 45) and 2 (post-chemotherapy; n = 45), objective response rate was 25% and 10%, and median over

207 Objective response rate was 25.6%, 26.9%, and 38.0% in t

208 For all evaluable patients, the confirmed objective response rate was 26%, including one complete

209 e, one to 12) since diagnosis, the confirmed objective response rate was 30% (partial response, n = 1

210 Objective response rate was 32% (95% confidence interval

211 Objective response rate was 34.3% (95% CI, 25.3% to 44.2

212 dian follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ong

213 Confirmed objective response rate was 44% (95% CI, 35.1% to 53.2%)

214 patients with HA-high tumors (PAG v AG), the objective response rate was 45% versus 31%, and median o

215 In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 grou

216 The objective response rate was 46% after the first four cyc

217 The objective response rate was 48% (7 complete responses; 3

218 , 12 were confirmed responders; the observed objective response rate was 50% (95% CI, 29% to 71%).

219 The objective response rate was 58.3% for patients who disco

220 Confirmed objective response rate was 62%, with a complete respons

221 The objective response rate was 69% (95% CI 53-82; 31 of 45

222 The confirmed objective response rate was 71.8% (95% confidence interv

223 The objective response rate was 82%, and the complete respon

224 The objective response rate was 85%, including 15 patients (

225 Objective response rate was 86% (95% confidence interval

226 ion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with ta

227 ismodegib, with an objective response in 23 (objective response rate, 85%; CR rate, 37%; partial resp

228 End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS).

229 ng patients with brain metastases, confirmed objective response rate, and safety.

230 y end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety.

231 Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safet

232 ondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, effects o

233 Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and t

234 end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and

235 Use of liso-cel resulted in a high objective response rate, with a low incidence of grade 3

236 docrine tumors (NETs) demonstrates a limited objective response rate.

237 luded overall survival, PFS by HA level, and objective response rate.

238 econdary endpoints were overall survival and objective response rate.

239 The primary end point was objective response rate.

240 h cohort had a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate.

241 ded OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate; OS and PFS were also analyzed a

242 The primary end points were safety and objective response rate; secondary end points were progr

243 ) or three or more of 25 (cohort 3B) had CNS objective response rates (ORR), the drug combination wou

244 ter the first cycle had significantly higher objective response rates and longer progression-free and

245 ainst cancer, challenges associated with low objective response rates and severe systemic side effect

246 Objective response rates for pazopanib and doxorubicin w

247 uation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 objective response rates of 20% versus 50%.

248 hs) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 23.3% (95% CI, 14.8% to 33.6

249 hs) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 37.1% (95% CI, 21.5% to 55.1

250 In non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), objective response rates to monotherapy were 71% in foll

251 CT-ineligible cohort, independently assessed objective response rates were 10% and 3%, and median dur

252 Objective response rates were 26.3% (95% CI, 9.1 to 51.2

253 Objective response rates were 28% (95% CI, 13.7% to 41.3

254 Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment

255 Despite promising objective response rates, most patients relapse, and low

256 Durable objective responses show the potential of nivolumab for

257 The primary endpoint was objective response (the proportion of patients who achie

258 FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements achieved an objective response (three complete responses and 35 part

259 urvival, proportion of patients achieving an objective response, time to radiographic progression, sa

260 e the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overa

261 treated with a VEGFR-targeted therapy had an objective response to cabozantinib.

262 ability, and the proportion of patients with objective response to pembrolizumab for each tumour type

263 (V600E) mutations are rarely associated with objective responses to the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in

264 mechanisms underlying PTSD and for tracking objective responses to treatment.

265 ore TKIs, the proportion of patients with an objective response was 11 (42%) of 26 patients (23-63).

266 The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 114 (91%) of 125 with alectinib,

267 irmed proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 15.6% (95% CI 10.2-22.5; 23 of 14

268 , the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 19 (46%) of 41 patients (95% CI 3

269 Objective response was 4% and clinical benefit rate (CR

270 tumour); the proportion of patients with an objective response was 5.9% (95% CI 2.6-11.3).

271 In group 1, of 28 evaluable patients, an objective response was achieved by 11 (39%; 95% CI 22-59

272 s included in the efficacy-evaluable set, an objective response was achieved by 186 (73%, 95% CI 66.8

273 An objective response was achieved by 53 (24.5%, 95% CI 18.

274 In group 2, of 27 evaluable patients, an objective response was achieved by five (19%; 6-38) in g

275 ing seven crizotinib-pretreated patients, an objective response was achieved by six (50%) of 12 patie

276 Confirmed objective response was achieved in 23 (28.4%, 95% CI 18.

277 Confirmed objective response was achieved in 52 (19.6%, 95% CI 15.

278 Objective response was limited to patients with PI3K pat

279 An objective response was observed in 34 (44%; 95% CI 32-55

280 Objective response was obtained in 16% and stable diseas

281 ranial response rate was 12% in cohort A; no objective response was reported in patients with brain l

282 The number of patients achieving an objective response was three (7%; 95% CI 1.5-19.9) of 41

283 Of the patients evaluable for response, objective responses were 12 (43%) of 28 (non-small-cell

284 ients with PD-L1 of 1% or greater, confirmed objective responses were achieved in 12 (57%) of 21 pati

285 Confirmed objective responses were achieved in 18 (47% [95% CI 31-

286 Objective responses were documented in 75% of all patien

287 Objective responses were not observed in other tumour ty

288 Objective responses were observed in 17 (18.48%; 95% CI

289 Objective responses were observed in 30 (29%; 95% CI 21-

290 Objective responses were observed in 4 out of 9 RT patie

291 Objective responses were observed in 69.2% (cohort A), 2

292 Objective responses were observed independent of the mol

293 Objective responses were seen in 22 (41.5%) of 53 patien

294 he percentage of patients who achieved a CNS objective response with measurable or non-measurable bas

295 lish the proportion of patients achieving an objective response with palbociclib and cetuximab in rec

296 ed to tumors and, in one patient, induced an objective response with regression of bone metastatic le

297 5) out of 100 evaluable patients achieved an objective response, with responses recorded in all four

298 rtial response or stable disease as the best objective response within 12 mo.

299 ary null hypothesis was equal probability of objective response within 6 months of random allocation

300 primary endpoint for Ewing sarcoma was best objective response within 6 months of treatment onset; f