ライフサイエンスコーパス: objective response rate

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

2 d in combination with WBRT, with a favorable objective response rate.

3 end point of this trial was to evaluate the objective response rate.

4 The primary end point was objective response rate.

5 n Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -defined objective response rate.

6 The primary end point was objective response rate.

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

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

9 Primary outcome was objective response rate.

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

11 l testing in metastatic RCC with substantial objective response rates.

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

13 te and four partial responses were achieved (objective response rate, 16%) in the 31 patients assessa

14 GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and pr

15 ted serum TIMP-1 had a significantly reduced objective response rate (19.2% v 30.6%; odds ratio, 0.54

16 atient achieved a PR in the brain by RECIST (objective response rate 2.6%, 95% conditional CI, 0.21%

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

18 Elderly patients had similar objective response rates (28% v 33%) and median time to

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

20 time, 11 v 5 months, respectively; P < .001; objective response rate, 31% v 6%, respectively; P < .00

21 rogression, 0.60; P<0.001) and increased the objective response rate (36.9% vs. 21.2%, P<0.001).

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

23 Responses: pCR rate, 49%; objective response rate, 61% (24 complete and six partia

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

25 The objective response rate (78.5% v 57.4%; P < .0001) and D

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

27 with 1 complete and 2 partial responses (18% objective response rate; 90% confidence interval, 5%-40%

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

29 The objective response rate according to an independent thir

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

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

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

33 The objective-response rate (according to modified World Hea

34 l benefits in several cancer types; however, objective response rates achieved with single-agent ther

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

36 eribulin achieved an independently reviewed objective response rate (all partial responses [PRs]) of

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

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

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

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

41 15, 2013, for progression-free survival and objective response rate and March 5, 2014, for overall s

42 monstrates antitumor activity as measured by objective response rate and PFS and is well tolerated in

43 rapy for non-small-cell lung cancer improves objective response rate and progression-free survival.

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

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

46 ds has yielded unimpressive results with low objective response rates and overlapping CIs.

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

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

49 treatment Odds Ratios (ORs) for the outcome objective response rate, and number of Serious Adverse E

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

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

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

53 on-free survival (assessed by investigator), objective response rate, and safety.

54 urvival as assessed by the investigator, the objective response rate, and safety.

55 points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and safety.

56 The primary end point was objective response rate, and secondary end points were t

57 n-free survival (investigator-assessed), the objective response rate, and the time to symptom progres

58 y end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and toxicity.

59 y end points were progression-free survival, objective response rates, and post-treatment declines of

60 ts included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates, and safety.

61 ing, preconditioning regimen has resulted in objective response rates approaching 50%.

62 e primary end point of the study was overall objective response rate as assessed by independent centr

63 s were 6-month progression-free survival and objective response rate, as determined by independent ra

64 Primary end points were objective response rate at 12 weeks and progression-free

65 The objective response rate at 12 weeks was 5%, with stable

66 The objective response rate at the end of treatment was 39%

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

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

69 logous tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), objective response rates between 49% and 72% were seen.

70 ts of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterior

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

72 /= 12 months among 112 treated patients, the objective response rate by independent assessment was 25

73 The confirmed objective response rate by independent central review wa

74 Objective response rate by modified WHO criteria was 42%

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

76 Objective response rates by Response Evaluation Criteria

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

78 Primary end point was overall objective response rate (complete plus partial).

79 Objective response rate (complete response [CR] plus par

80 Objective response rate (complete response plus partial

81 The objective response rate (complete responses plus partial

82 In melanoma patients, objective response rate [complete and partial response (

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

84 Outcome measures including toxicity, objective response rate, complete response rate, failure

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

86 overall survival (OS), 1-year survival rate, objective response rate, duration of objective response,

87 cin, and streptozocin (FAS) to determine the objective response rate, duration of progression-free su

88 l (PFS) by RECIST; secondary end points were objective response rate, duration of response (DOR), ove

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

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

91 t differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver

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

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

94 Objective response rate for ridaforolimus versus compara

95 The objective response rate for the overall population was 3

96 Objective response rates for arms A, B, and C were 37%,

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

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

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

100 Objective response rate in 50 evaluable patients was 60%

101 id not demonstrate a meaningful single-agent objective response rate in colorectal cancer refractory

102 A 43% objective response rate in follicular NHL patients treat

103 In clinical trials, objective response rates in patients who had been extens

104 rate gemcitabine and docetaxel achieved high objective response rates in three prospective phase II s

105 The objective response rate observed after RT was 38%.

106 For the 390 assessable patients, the objective response rates observed with initial therapy w

107 nd 34+ months, respectively), for an overall objective response rate of 13%.

108 The objective response rate of 19% in stratum 2 suggests tha

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

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

111 An objective response rate of 35% was observed in 49 treate

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

113 onmyeloablative chemotherapy alone showed an objective response rate of 49%, when 2 or 12 Gy of TBI w

114 l responses were observed, which provided an objective response rate of 52%.

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

116 e of PD-L1 induced durable tumor regression (objective response rate of 6 to 17%) and prolonged stabi

117 n these very heavily pretreated patients, an objective response rate of 60%, including 22% complete r

118 CCI-779 produced an objective response rate of 7% (one complete response and

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

120 Temsirolimus produced an objective response rate of 9.2% (10 partial responses) i

121 r complete response, resulting in an overall objective response rate of 91%.

122 interleukin (IL)-2 and dacarbazine, mediate objective response rates of 12% to 15%.

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

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

125 autologous TIL transfer and IL-2 results in objective response rates of 50% to 70% in patients with

126 tment for patients with metastatic melanoma (objective response rates of 50%).

127 nts with metastatic melanoma, who have shown objective response rates of 70% to 80%.

128 Treatment at the MTD yielded objective response rates of 87%, 74%, and 20% for relaps

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

130 The objective response rate (ORR) and CBR were 3.4% and 10.3

131 with erlotinib (Erl), has shown encouraging objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survi

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

133 Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and safety.

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

135 The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by Response Ev

136 Primary end points included safety, the objective response rate (ORR) at 16 weeks, and the perce

137 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) based on investigator asse

138 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST (version 1.0).

139 Objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Cri

140 The primary end point was the overall objective response rate (ORR) determined by an independe

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

142 Overall objective response rate (ORR) in pancreatic endocrine tu

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

144 Objective response rate (ORR) is an increasingly importa

145 The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR) measured by the modified s

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

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

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

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

150 In 3464 evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 17% (n=603), with subg

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

152 Objective response rate (ORR) was 52% (95% CI, 42% to 62

153 For assessable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 64% (15 complete respo

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

155 Objective response rate (ORR) was also similar between t

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

157 The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher w

158 Objective response rate (ORR) was the primary end point.

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

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

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

162 Foretinib safety and tolerability, and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated in patients

163 ts included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), and

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

165 points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

166 points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment toxicity.

167 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), assessed by an independen

168 ndary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), cardiac toxicity, and saf

169 as used to estimate the primary end point of objective response rate (ORR), defined by RECIST (Respon

170 y end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of objective res

171 verall survival, PFS by chemotherapy cohort, objective response rate (ORR), duration of objective res

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

173 ts included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), an

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

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

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

177 overall survival, secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), safety, symptom improveme

178 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), with secondary end points

179 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), with secondary end points

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

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

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

183 The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR).

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

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

186 The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); a two-stage design was us

187 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR); secondary end points incl

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

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

190 ; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), a

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

192 ponses (CRs) and six partial responses (PRs; objective response rate [ORR], 42.9%; 90% CI, 24.5% to 6

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

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

195 Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, patient-repor

196 Secondary objectives included objective response rate, overall survival, safety and to

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

198 advantages for vandetanib were also seen for objective response rate (P < .001), disease control rate

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

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

201 Objective response rate, percentage of tumor burden shri

202 no statistically significant differences in objective response rates, progression-free survival, or

203 Overall objective response rate, rate of response improvement, a

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

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

206 nt ovarian cancer, the regimen induced a 35% objective response rate (RR) and progression-free surviv

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

208 The primary end point was objective response rate (RR) in the first 100 assessable

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

210 ion with progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (RR) was analyzed using the Cox

211 This planned interim analysis evaluated objective response rate (RR), time to tumor progression

212 The primary end point was objective response rate (RR).

213 The best objective response rate (RR; Response Evaluation Criteri

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

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

216 hs [1.3-4.1]; HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.75) and objective response rate suggested some clinical activity

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

218 Sunitinib was also associated with a higher objective response rate than was interferon alfa (31% vs

219 quartlets have been reported to have higher objective response rates than single-agent cisplatin whe

220 Despite relatively high objective response rates, the impact on survival in pati

221 rates have decreased more quickly than have objective response rates, the ratio of risk to benefit m

222 ary end point was the independently assessed objective response rate; the primary hypotheses were tha

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

224 The objective response rate to trastuzumab monotherapy is 12

225 Despite the fact that objective response rates to 5-FU are as low as 20%, 5-FU

226 The objective response rates to induction and overall treatm

227 The objective response rate was 12.3% (95% CI, 5.1% to 23.7%

228 The objective response rate was 13.8% in patients who receiv

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

230 In the every-3-weeks arm, the objective response rate was 14% (nine PR; 95% CI, 6% to

231 The objective response rate was 14%.

232 The objective response rate was 14.3% (95% CI, 5.9% to 27.2%

233 The objective response rate was 15%.

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

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

236 The objective response rate was 2.9%, and 50% of patients ha

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

238 The objective response rate was 20%, and 27% of patients had

239 Objective response rate was 20.1% with selumetinib + doc

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

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

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

243 The objective response rate was 25% (33 of 130), including 1

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

245 Overall, the objective response rate was 26% (confirmed and unconfirm

246 Objective response rate was 26% [corrected] for arm A an

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

248 The objective response rate was 27.6% for arm 1 and 19.2% fo

249 viewed journals was 0.54%, while the overall objective response rate was 3.8%.

250 The objective response rate was 30% (12 of 40 patients; 95%

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

252 The objective response rate was 34.4% with BV plus chemother

253 Therefore, the overall objective response rate was 40%.

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

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

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

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

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

259 Objective response rate was 47% for sunitinib compared w

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

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

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

263 the 49 patients assessable for response, the objective response rate was 55% (95% CI, 41% to 69%).

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

265 for chemotherapeutic response (pre-RT), the objective response rate was 58%.

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

267 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

268 The objective response rate was 61% (24% complete response a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

278 The overall objective response rate was 9.6%, the likelihood of expe

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

280 Objective response rate was also increased (35% v 14%; P

281 Objective response rate was higher in the combination ar

282 The objective response rate was higher with T-DM1 (43.6%, vs

283 r cancer vaccine trials of 440 patients, the objective response rate was low (2.6%), and comparable t

284 The objective response rate was low in previously treated pa

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

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

287 4 adverse events related to therapy and the objective-response rate was 20%.

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

289 Overall objective response rates were 14% in group 1 and 11% in

290 Objective response rates were 22% (5 of 23) for DLBCL, 1

291 Objective response rates were 24% among patients with pr

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

293 al rates were 42.6% and 50.3%, respectively; objective response rates were 28.2% and 37.8%, respectiv

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

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

296 Objective response rates were 65% for the EP group and 5

297 Objective response rates were also significantly lower f

298 Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment

299 Objective response rates were similar in CD25+ (22%) and

300 Objective response rates were similar in the two arms: 1