ライフサイエンスコーパス: objective response

1 e response (44 [62% (50-73)] had a confirmed objective response).

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

3 the six previously untreated patients had an objective response.

4 melanoma achieving an investigator-assessed objective response.

5 .4) of 80 patients achieved an IRRC-assessed objective response.

6 point was the proportion of patients with an objective response.

7 f 116 receiving 800 mg sonidegib achieved an objective response.

8 32 patients with pancreatic NETs achieved an objective response.

9 s the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response.

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

11 93 (61% [95% CI 53-69]) patients achieved an objective response.

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

13 No patient had an objective response.

14 d received confirmation of stable disease or objective response.

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

16 %) of 60 assessable patients had a confirmed objective response.

17 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response.

18 follicular lymphoma, respectively, achieved objective responses.

19 was tolerable but did not lead to increased objective responses.

20 ts with ALK-rearranged NSCLC had a confirmed objective response (100% [63-100]).

21 l (HR 0.51 [95% CI 0.41-0.62]; p<0.0001) and objective response (17% [13-22] with cabozantinib vs 3%

22 Six patients experienced an objective response (20%), including 1 with a durable com

23 40-100]) of four patients in cohort 1 had an objective response, 31 (74% [58-86]) of 42 did in cohort

24 61 (84%) patients achieved an objective response (33 [92%] with 10 mg/kg, 28 [76%] wit

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

26 LC with previous crizotinib treatment had an objective response (44 [62% (50-73)] had a confirmed obj

27 4-23.2), 22 (71%) of 31 patients achieved an objective response (95% CI 52.0-85.8); four patients (13

28 s the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response according to International Myeloma Wo

29 was the response rate, defined either as an objective response according to Response Evaluation Crit

30 Ten patients (29%) achieved objective responses (according to RECIST [version 1.0]),

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

32 ive patients with repeat imaging achieved an objective response, although four (80%) of those patient

33 the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-ty

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

35 4 patients achieved an investigator-assessed objective response and 51 (69%, 57-79) patients had dise

36 apeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression.

37 greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alt

38 s were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival.

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

40 s in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free surviv

41 Objective response and toxicity rates were similar to th

42 a therapeutic strategy although the lack of objective responses and the development of resistance ar

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

44 ree survival, proportion of patients with an objective response, and toxicity.

45 omising new therapy for B-cell malignancies, objective responses are observed at lower frequencies in

46 the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as assessed by an independent radiolo

47 .5%, 95% CI 8.7-22.2) of 117 patients had an objective response as assessed by an independent radiolo

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

49 atients with locally advanced disease had an objective response, as assessed by central review, as di

50 (43%, 95% CI 28-59) patients who achieved an objective response, as assessed by central review, were

51 was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response, as assessed by investigators, by int

52 CI 52.4-93.6) patients with Gly719Xaa had an objective response, as did nine (56.3%, 29.9-80.2) with

53 %, 95% CI 54.1-84.6) patients in group 1 had objective responses, as did two (14.3%, 1.8-42.8) in gro

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

55 point was the proportion of patients with an objective response, assessed by Response Evaluation Crit

56 s the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, assessed in the primary efficacy ana

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

58 was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by an independent review committee us

59 %; 95% CI 64-77) of 199 patients achieved an objective response by blinded independent central review

60 was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by blinded independent central review

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

62 The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment.

63 se was associated with failure to achieve an objective response by RECIST (negative predictive value,

64 evaluable for response, none experienced an objective response by RECIST (version 1.1); however, 17

65 hus, the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by the independent review committee w

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

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

68 olizumab plus chemotherapy group achieved an objective response compared with 18 (29%; 18-41) of 63 p

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

70 elayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus.

71 proportion of patients achieving an overall objective response, compared with chemotherapy alone.

72 The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response (complete response or partial respons

73 s the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response (complete response plus partial respo

74 evaluable for activity, 19 (66%) achieved an objective response: complete responses were noted in 15

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

76 eatment, 11 (85%) of 13 patients achieved an objective response (CR rate, 62%; estimated 1-year PFS r

77 treatment, all patients (n = 26) achieved an objective response (CR rate, 88%; estimated 1-year PFS r

78 nce of clinical activity, albeit not meeting objective response criteria.

79 s the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, defined as the percentage of patient

80 onse to chemoradiotherapy (stable disease vs objective response), delivery of chemoradiotherapy (conc

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

82 urden in tumors was associated with improved objective response, durable clinical benefit, and progre

83 Among 22 patients (17%) with objective responses, estimated median response duration

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

85 The primary endpoint was objective response following a prespecified minimum foll

86 ime of this analysis, the median duration of objective response for efficacy-evaluable patients (N =

87 Objective response for mBCC was 33.6% (95% CI, 33.1%-34.

88 iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine score had objective responses (four complete responses; two partia

89 ssion, two patients with stable disease, and objective response in 24 patients, including five comple

90 ose rate gemcitabine plus docetaxel achieves objective response in 35% of patients with uterine leiom

91 econdary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients ass

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

93 all survival, progression-free survival, and objective response in the first-line treatment of patien

94 s the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response in the intention-to-treat population

95 t blockade has led to remarkable and durable objective responses in a number of different tumor types

96 nt option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need.

97 n is generally well tolerated, with observed objective responses in advanced melanoma.

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

99 pilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among

100 40 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma had an objective response, including four (40%) of ten patients

101 (5%) of 40 patients with bone sarcoma had an objective response, including one (5%) of 22 patients wi

102 22 (12% [95% CI 8-18]) achieved a confirmed objective response, including one complete response and

103 33 previously untreated patients achieved an objective response, including partial response in 18 pat

104 %) of 60 assessable patients had a confirmed objective response, including ten (38%) of 26 patients c

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

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

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

108 ry end point was durable response rate (DRR; objective response lasting continuously >/= 6 months) pe

109 us in therapy selection, treatment planning, objective response monitoring and follow-up therapy plan

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

111 and conventional chemotherapy as assessed by objective response (odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence inte

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

113 20%) patients had a partial response, for an objective response of 20% (95% CI 6.8-40.7), and 13 (52%

114 In conclusion, SRL and PDN often induce objective responses or disease stabilization and may rep

115 14% of the 81 evaluable patients achieved an objective response (OR) and 31% percent showed >/=50% de

116 s clinical benefit; secondary endpoints were objective response (OR), duration of OR, and progression

117 ents assigned to three or four cycles had an objective response (p=0.16), without heterogeneity betwe

118 We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had

119 is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint.

120 were the proportion of patients achieving an objective response, progression-free survival, overall s

121 al (25.8 nu 25.5 months; HR, 1.0; P = .6) or objective response rate (27.0% nu 27.4%) with temsirolim

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

123 The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (best overall response of comple

124 The random-effects weighted average objective response rate (complete and partial responses,

125 assess safety; secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR) and 24-week progression-fr

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

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

128 The objective response rate (ORR) for G-B was 90% (18/20) wi

129 The study was powered to detect overall objective response rate (ORR) in the glembatumumab vedot

130 Objective response rate (ORR) is an increasingly importa

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

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

133 nd points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1.

134 For BV plus DTIC, the objective response rate (ORR) was 100% and the complete

135 The objective response rate (ORR) was 2 of 6 (33%) for the s

136 The objective response rate (ORR) was 92%, with 73% achievin

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

138 patients, median PFS, overall survival, and objective response rate (ORR) were 11.0 months, 18.5 mon

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

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

141 urvival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), an

142 Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), sa

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

144 The primary endpoint was composite CNS objective response rate (ORR), requiring all of the foll

145 efficacy end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR).

146 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR).

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

148 The primary end point was safety, and objective response rate (ORR, confirmed) was a key secon

149 months), and 62 patients were evaluable for objective response rate (ORR; 15%; 95% CI, 7% to 26%).

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

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

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

153 Coprimary end points were objective response rate (RR) and response prediction by

154 The confirmed objective response rate (RR) was 32% (11 of 35 patients;

155 to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective response rate according to immune-modified REC

156 ere the independent review facility-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the

157 The primary end point was the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation

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

159 The objective response rate among the 25 patients with at le

160 twice daily or the HBr form at any dose, the objective response rate among the 46 patients with T790M

161 Secondary objectives included objective response rate and 24-week progression-free sur

162 The immune-related objective response rate and immune-related progression-f

163 15, 2013, for progression-free survival and objective response rate and March 5, 2014, for overall s

164 Secondary end points included objective response rate and progression-free survival.

165 coprimary end points were the immune-related objective response rate and the 20-week immune-related p

166 y of cancer patients, so how to increase the objective response rate becomes an urgent challenge.

167 Secondary end points were objective response rate by immune-related response crite

168 The confirmed objective response rate by independent central review wa

169 Objective response rate by modified WHO criteria was 42%

170 The primary end point was objective response rate by RECIST v1.0; secondary end po

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

172 lted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecified immune cel

173 Objective response rate for ridaforolimus versus compara

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

175 dministration was associated with an overall objective response rate of 33%, 12-month progression-fre

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

177 Merkel-cell carcinoma was associated with an objective response rate of 56%.

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

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

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

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

182 ior to first progression, the RECIST-defined objective response rate was 14% (5 patients) and 16% (15

183 The objective response rate was 18.2% (9.8-29.6) with olarat

184 Among all the patients, the objective response rate was 19.4%, and the median durati

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

186 Objective response rate was 20.1% with selumetinib + doc

187 The objective response rate was 21% (complete response = 4 [

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

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

190 For patients with refractory DLBCL, the objective response rate was 26% (complete response rate,

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

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

193 The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0)

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

195 Objective response rate was 44% for DLBCL, including 8 (

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

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

198 The objective response rate was 50%, and 44% of patients had

199 The confirmed objective response rate was 50.0% (95% CI, 33.8% to 66.2

200 Objective response rate was 52.5% (95% confidence interv

201 The objective response rate was 58% and 63% in cohorts A and

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

203 rate was 35.5% (95% CI, 27.6% to 44.3%) and objective response rate was 60.2% (95% CI, 50.6% to 69.0

204 The objective response rate was 61.0% (95% CI, 44.5%-75.8%),

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

206 The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-thera

207 The objective response rate was 65% in the experimental grou

208 The objective response rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6

209 Objective response rate was 8%, 12%, 22%, 43%, 57%, and

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

211 In phase II, the objective response rate was 85.7%.

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

213 Following R-MPV, objective response rate was 97%, and 26 (81%) patients p

214 ing procedure was used to assess whether the objective response rate was significantly higher than th

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

216 -deficient colorectal cancer (immune-related objective response rate, 71% [5 of 7 patients]; immune-r

217 Three women achieved a partial response (CNS objective response rate, 8%; 95% CI, 2% to 22%).

218 y higher in the presence of PIK3CA mutation (objective response rate, 93% v 63% in PIK3CA wild type;

219 on-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate, and duration of response-as wel

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

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

222 on-free survival, clinical benefit response, objective response rate, and safety.

223 ent of safety; secondary end points included objective response rate, complete remission (CR) rate, p

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

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

226 all survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate, however this improvement should

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

228 overall survival, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, safety, patient-reported outcom

229 free survival, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate.

230 Primary outcome was objective response rate.

231 nd points included overall survival (OS) and objective response rate.

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

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

234 The objective-response rate and the progression-free surviva

235 cutaneous metastases studied and had similar objective response rates (54.5% [95% CI, 48.3% to 60.7%]

236 In parts B and C, confirmed objective response rates (ORR) were 15% (95% CI, 4% to 3

237 Objective response rates (ORRs) at any site were similar

238 PFS, overall survival (OS), and objective response rates (ORRs) were compared to determi

239 The objective response rates did not seem to be affected by

240 ction rate was 95.28%, and predicted overall objective response rates for group data in 66 of 67 drug

241 Objective response rates for nivolumab 10 mg/kg plus gem

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

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

244 Objective response rates were 11.0% for eribulin and 11.

245 utoff Sept 14, 2015), by independent review, objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 18-36) in the

246 In patients evaluable for response, the objective response rates were 34.6% (95% CI, 28.3-41.3)

247 Objective response rates were 40%, 36%, 15%, and 40% amo

248 Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment

249 ating T cells contributing to differences in objective response rates.

250 ry end points of the study were complete and objective response rates.

251 , the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, safety, and quality of life.

252 Durable objective responses show the potential of nivolumab for

253 ients with relapsed or refractory CLL had an objective response: six (40%) achieved a partial respons

254 CNS metastases at baseline, 11 (52%) had an objective response; six (29%) had a complete response (t

255 ivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study

256 patients in the dacomitinb group achieved an objective response than in the placebo group (34 [7%] of

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

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

259 tumor vasculature with sunitinib resulted in objective response to cytotoxic chemotherapy.

260 Objective response to vismodegib for laBCC had a weighte

261 Approximately 75% of objective responses to anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) th

262 f 37 response-evaluable patients achieved an objective response (two complete responses and three par

263 ffuse large B-cell lymphoma achieved durable objective responses (two complete responses at 120 mg on

264 24 (86%) of 28 patients achieved an objective response; two (7%) patients achieved a complet

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

266 The median duration of objective response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 11.1-24.0 mo

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

268 Median time to objective response was 2.2 months in both patient groups

269 The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 28 (31.8% [95.9% CI 21.9-43.1]) o

270 BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the gr

271 , the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 68%; 38 (34%) of 111 patients had

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

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

274 A confirmed investigator-assessed objective response was achieved in 19 (24.4%, 95% CI 15.

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

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

277 An objective response was achieved in ten (10%) of 98 patie

278 The proportion of patients with an objective response was compared with a Mantel-Haenszel t

279 Objective response was limited to patients with PI3K pat

280 Among response-assessable patients, an objective response was noted in nine (18%, 95% CI 9-32)

281 An objective response was reported in 194 of 581 patients (

282 An objective response was reported in 20 patients (87%), in

283 Toxicity and objective response were compared at 3 months after treat

284 and OS between patients with and without an objective response were performed using pooled data from

285 Investigator-reported confirmed objective responses were achieved by six (23%, 95% CI 9-

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

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

288 to proceed to the second stage, two or more objective responses were needed in the first 20 response

289 In phase 2, objective responses were noted in 14 of 22 (63.6%, 95% C

290 At the recommended phase 2 dose, objective responses were noted in 23 of 42 activity-eval

291 Investigator-assessed objective responses were noted in 24 (55%) patients, wit

292 Confirmed objective responses were noted in 55 (87%) of 63 patient

293 Objective responses were observed in 17 (31.5%) of 54 pa

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

295 No objective responses were observed in patients with CLL.

296 No objective responses were observed with chemotherapy.

297 Confirmed objective responses were recorded in ten (15%) of 66 pat

298 Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31.7%, 95% CI 2

299 were enrolled; 8 achieved stable disease or objective responses, whereas 2 had disease progression.

300 (88%, 95% CI 75.7-95.5) patients achieved an objective response, with 22 (44%, 30.0-58.7) patients ac