1 nd points included overall survival (OS) and
overall response rate.
2 Primary end point was
overall response rate.
3 The primary end point was the
overall response rate.
4 The primary end point was the
overall response rate.
5 nd points were progression-free survival and
overall response rate.
6 LFOXIRI-Bev is associated with a significant
overall response rate.
7 gression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months and
overall response rate.
8 The primary end point was the
overall response rate.
9 The primary end point was
overall response rate.
10 all survival, progression-free survival, and
overall response rate.
11 nts, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and
overall response rate.
12 to acute myelogenous leukemia and improving
overall response rates.
13 , with 877 patients clinically evaluable for
overall response rates.
14 ituximab regarding maintenance of R, CR, and
overall response rates.
15 lung cancer patients but are limited by low
overall response rates.
16 uximab vedotin is effective in treating LyP (
overall response rate,
100%; complete response rate, 58%
17 Overall response rate (
27% v 10%) and median duration of
18 ns were significantly associated with poorer
overall response rates (
27% v 83%; P < .001) and shorter
19 able patients with RCC treated at 20 mug/kg (
overall response rate,
27%).
20 Overall response rates (
30% and 23%) were similar in bot
21 to one of two subsequent shortened versions (
overall response rate,
32%).
22 rated and has significant clinical activity (
overall response rate 36.8%, median duration of response
23 ention (n = 469) or brochures only (n = 461;
overall response rate,
37.1%) and were again interviewed
24 R, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.10; P = .541), or
overall response rate (
46.3% v 47.3%).
25 ifornia (N = 623; participation rate, 69.2%;
overall response rate,
49.2%).
26 tions, and 11 experienced partial responses (
overall response rate,
50%; disease control rate [DCR],
27 a range of doses and disease subtypes: iNHL
overall response rate,
58% (n = 31) with 6 complete resp
28 as 72%; person-level response rate, 84%; and
overall response rate,
60.1%.
29 complete in six patients and partial in 16 (
overall response rate,
65%; 95% CI, 49% to 81%); 11 had
30 patients, including five complete responses (
overall response rate,
80%; disease control rate, 86.7%)
31 FCA also increased the
overall response rate (
88 vs 78%, P = .036), and the bon
32 B (68% v 50%; P = .002) who, despite similar
overall response rates (
90% v 87%), achieved a higher co
33 Among 21 evaluable patients, the
overall response rate after 1 blinatumomab cycle was 43%
34 The
overall response rate after completion of therapy was 10
35 nts with measurable disease after AHSCT, the
overall response rate after pidilizumab treatment was 51
36 The
overall response rate (
all partial responses) was higher
37 up of 30 months (through February 2015), the
overall response rate among the participants who could b
38 CR4(WT) (with WT indicating wild-type) (100%
overall response rate and 91.2% major response rate), fo
39 To compare the
overall response rate and assess the safety of a propose
40 After treatment, the
overall response rate and disease control rate were 7.9%
41 ice for relapsed disease because of the high
overall response rate and excellent tolerability.
42 ludarabine alone yielded higher complete and
overall response rates and longer progression-free, but
43 ual-dose O6-benzylguanine resulted in higher
overall response rates and reduced total carmustine dose
44 ondary end points included overall survival,
overall response rate,
and safety.
45 The primary end point was the
overall response rate,
and the secondary end points were
46 On the basis of the PFS,
overall response rate,
and tolerability of these two ant
47 tcomes were progression-free survival (PFS),
overall response rate,
and toxicity.
48 One-year progression-free survival,
overall response rate,
and very good partial response ra
49 rall survival and progression-free survival,
overall response rates,
and rates of R0 surgical convers
50 all survival, progression-free survival, and
overall response rate--
and adverse events have been repo
51 respect to study design and methodology, the
overall response rate appears to exceed 50% in OCD for s
52 The primary end point was the
overall response rate as ascertained by the independent
53 ith the duration of overall survival and the
overall response rate as secondary end points.
54 d with trastuzumab resulted in an equivalent
overall response rate at 24 weeks.
55 Overall response rate at 70 mg/m(2) was 77%.
56 The
overall response rate at study end was 70.8%.
57 The
overall response rate at the end of treatment was 55% (9
58 Primary end point was
overall response rate at the end of treatment.
59 Phase 2 assessed
overall response rate at the MTD.
60 of the combination and phase 2 was to assess
overall response rate at the MTD.
61 The
overall response rates at 6 months were 80%, 87%, and 94
62 There was no significant difference in the
overall response rate between the two arms, with complet
63 Overall response rates between 75% and 90% and complete
64 Best
overall response rate (
BORR) was 29% (21% excluding nonc
65 s were progression-free survival (PFS), best
overall response rate (
BORR), immune-related BORR (irBOR
66 19 of these patients who were restaged, the
overall response rate by IWCLL imaging criteria 4 weeks
67 Patients attaining a CMR had a 96%
overall response rate by IWG criteria, with 62.5% achiev
68 Overall response rate (
complete and partial response) wa
69 The primary endpoint was
overall response rate (
complete remission [CR] plus CR w
70 ts Four weeks after CAR-T cell infusion, the
overall response rate (
complete response [CR] and/or par
71 The
overall response rate,
complete response rate (including
72 Overall response rate (
CR + PR) was 31% (95% CI, 11% to
73 The
overall response rate for all active treatments investig
74 The
overall response rate for patients with IMT (treated at
75 The
overall response rates for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP were 97%
76 The
overall response rates for KRd vs Rd were 79.2% vs 59.6%
77 Results The
overall response rates for patients with ALCL treated at
78 The
overall response rates for radiologic, biochemical, and
79 The primary end point was an
overall response rate (&
gt;/= partial response) of 42.4% in
80 The primary endpoint was
overall response rate (&
gt;/= partial response).
81 Overall response rate (
i.e., complete remission, hematol
82 primary end point was investigator-assessed
overall response rate in BRAF(V600E) mut(+) MM patients.
83 Overall response rate in the 120 evaluable patients was
84 Overall response rate in the 81 eligible patients was 96
85 Overall response rates in CLL/SLL patients (n = 66) were
86 The
overall response rates in patients with PTCL and CTCL we
87 The complete and
overall response rates in the combined cohorts were high
88 response rate (in the Italian trial) and the
overall response rate (
in the U.S. trial).
89 Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with ch
90 In supplemental analysis, the
overall response rate (
LSAS score </=50) was 46%, includ
91 The clinical benefit response (
overall response rate +
minimal response) was 59.3% and
92 owed that compared with a historical control
overall response rate of 10%, treatment with atezolizuma
93 en patients were treated with R-CHOP with an
overall response rate of 100% (complete responses 89%).
94 Patients achieved an
overall response rate of 28% (9 patients), and all were
95 /54 (85%) of evaluable patients achieving an
overall response rate of 30/64 (47%), with 1 patient hav
96 This regimen has a promising
overall response rate of 36% and median time to progress
97 artial responses in 9 of 45 patients, for an
overall response rate of 38% (95% confidence interval 24
98 e mutant IDH2 (mIDH2) inhibitor, produced an
overall response rate of 40.3% in relapsed/refractory AM
99 3 (9%), PR in 6 (17%), MR in 5 (14%) for an
overall response rate of 43%.
100 %) had progressive disease accounting for an
overall response rate of 45%.
101 The
overall response rate of 47% was not different between a
102 (11%), minor response (MR) in 8 (23%) for an
overall response rate of 49%.
103 ), and progressive disease in 1 (3%), for an
overall response rate of 51%.
104 ), and partial response in 12 (32.4%) for an
overall response rate of 54%.
105 atients achieved a partial remission, for an
overall response rate of 65% (90% CI, 48% to 79%).
106 limus has high single-agent activity with an
overall response rate of 70% and manageable toxicity in
107 other 5 (36%) were partial responders for an
overall response rate of 72% (10 of 14).
108 artial response in 23 patients (53%), for an
overall response rate of 72%.
109 n and 26 men; median age, 59.5 years) had an
overall response rate of 73% (95% CI, 60% to 86%; 35 of
110 lymphoma and lymphomatoid papulosis, with an
overall response rate of 73% and complete response rate
111 ean age, 46.4 years; women, 52.0% ), with an
overall response rate of 74%.
112 Brentuximab vedotin induces an
overall response rate of 75% in patients with relapsed/r
113 bendamustine-rituximab (BR) demonstrated an
overall response rate of 82% among 45 patients with rela
114 six (10%) achieved partial response, for an
overall response rate of 83%.
115 nstitutional clinical trials and achieved an
overall response rate of 87.5%.
116 line treatment in 32 patients resulted in an
overall response rate of 91% with 81% complete responses
117 better (n = 23), or stable (n = 2), with an
overall response rate of 92%.
118 The
overall response rate of refractory/relapsed HCL patient
119 ith bone marrow-confirmed CR in 29% and 31%,
overall response rates of 100% and 96%, respectively, an
120 3-CD19 monoclonal antibody, also resulted in
overall response rates of 40% to 50% and a median surviv
121 Adults and children each had initial
overall response rates of 57% and similar 5-year estimat
122 were no differences in rates of acquisition,
overall response rates,
or cocaine intake as a function
123 was partial response (PR) in four patients [(
overall response rate (
ORR) = 9%, 95% confidence interva
124 progression (TTP), duration of response, and
overall response rate (
ORR) according to the presence of
125 Primary end points were
overall response rate (
ORR) and duration of response (DO
126 Overall response rate (
ORR) and minimal residual disease
127 S); secondary/exploratory endpoints included
overall response rate (
ORR) and overall survival (OS).
128 survival (OS); secondary end points included
overall response rate (
ORR) and progression-free surviva
129 Primary endpoint was
overall response rate (
ORR) assessed with the Response E
130 nt was independent review committee-assessed
overall response rate (
ORR) by 2007 International Workin
131 The primary objectives were
overall response rate (
ORR) by independent review and sa
132 The primary outcome was week 24
overall response rate (
ORR) defined as complete or parti
133 The primary efficacy end point was
overall response rate (
ORR) for amrubicin.
134 The primary end point of this study was the
overall response rate (
ORR) in patients with follicular
135 ernational Working Committee (IWC) objective
overall response rate (
ORR) of 19% and a cytostatic ORR
136 a multikinase/KIT inhibitor, demonstrated an
overall response rate (
ORR) of 60% in advSM but biomarke
137 n, the primary objective was to evaluate the
overall response rate (
ORR) of CMP.
138 Overall response rate (
ORR) to first KI was 62% (complet
139 The
overall response rate (
ORR) was 21% (14/66), and 15% ach
140 Overall response rate (
ORR) was 22.5%, with nine confirm
141 Overall response rate (
ORR) was 50% (56-mg/m(2) cohort).
142 In the efficacy-evaluable population, the
overall response rate (
ORR) was 56% (29/52) and was simi
143 The
overall response rate (
ORR) was 59% (41 of 69 patients)-
144 The
overall response rate (
ORR) was 61%, and the complete re
145 The
overall response rate (
ORR) was 67% (44/66); 42% achieve
146 Overall response rate (
ORR) was 73.3% in the expansion p
147 In the MPD cohort,
overall response rate (
ORR) was 76.9% with median time t
148 Overall response rate (
ORR) was 85%, including 76% compl
149 Initial
overall response rate (
ORR) was 94.4% (68 of 72 patients
150 The
overall response rate (
ORR) was 97%, including 19% compl
151 The
overall response rate (
ORR) with BR-ibrutinib was 93.3%,
152 tios for milestone rates were calculated for
overall response rate (
ORR) within 6 months, 9-month pro
153 Overall survival (OS),
overall response rate (
ORR), and safety were secondary o
154 ary end point; secondary end points included
overall response rate (
ORR), duration of response (DOR),
155 survival (OS); secondary end points included
overall response rate (
ORR), progression-free survival (
156 The secondary end points were
overall response rate (
ORR), progression-free survival (
157 kinetic parameters, pharmacodynamic effects,
overall response rate (
ORR), progression-free survival (
158 Secondary end points were
overall response rate (
ORR), progression-free survival (
159 res were progression-free survival (PFS) and
overall response rate (
ORR), respectively.
160 -free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS),
overall response rate (
ORR), response duration (RD), tim
161 y end points included overall survival (OS),
overall response rate (
ORR), safety, and tolerability.
162 sured by progression-free survival (PFS) and
overall response rate (
ORR), was compared.
163 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR).
164 Primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR).
165 The primary end point was the
overall response rate (
ORR).
166 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR).
167 The primary end point was objective
overall response rate (
ORR).
168 nd points included overall survival (OS) and
overall response rate (
ORR).
169 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR).
170 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR).
171 The primary end point was
overall response rate (
ORR).
172 The primary outcome was
overall response rate (
ORR).
173 An
overall response rate (
ORR; defined as minimal response
174 re limited, and prognosis is generally poor (
overall response rate [
ORR] 0% to 25%; 2-year overall su
175 in previously untreated follicular lymphoma (
overall response rate [
ORR] 90%-96%) and ibrutinib in re
176 The primary end point (
overall response rate [
ORR]) was evaluated by positron e
177 lenalidomide or vorinostat produce superior
overall response rates (
ORRs) to azacitidine is not know
178 2.7 months (hazard ratio = 0.68, P = .003),
overall response rates (
ORRs) were 33% and 18% (P = .013
179 The primary endpoint was
overall response rate (
partial response [PR] + very good
180 The primary end point was
overall response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria i
181 The
overall response rate (
per modified MDS International Wo
182 the efficacy of vemurafenib with respect to
overall response rate (
percentage of treated patients wi
183 bine in an unselected cohort did not improve
overall response rate,
PFS, or OS in patients with metas
184 associations between correlative markers and
overall response rate,
PFS, or OS.
185 Overall response rate pretransplant was 97%.
186 The
overall response rates (
primary end point) were 58% [cor
187 rst-line platinum-based therapy to determine
overall response rate,
progression-free and overall surv
188 The primary endpoints were
overall response rate,
progression-free survival, and ov
189 The
overall response rate ranged from 32% to 91% for the 15
190 3 studies saw at least some response and the
overall response rates ranged from 48 and 81%.
191 overall survival, time to tumor progression,
overall response rate,
RBC transfusions, and thrombotic
192 At 1 month,
overall response rates regarding motor function were 87.
193 Primary end points:
overall response rate (
Response Evaluation Criteria in S
194 tives included progression-free survival and
overall response rate,
site-reported confirmed or unconf
195 l arms (EAs) and control arms (CAs) included
overall response rate,
stable disease, progression-free
196 Secondary end points were:
overall response rate,
stem-cell mobilization activity,
197 The
overall response rate to induction was 69%.
198 The
overall response rate to lenalidomide therapy is 65%, in
199 Overall response rate to therapy was 85%, whereas incide
200 The proportion responding (
overall response rate)
to bevacizumab was 28.2% among 39
201 tients with chromosome 17p13.1 deletion, the
overall response rate was 100%.
202 The
overall response rate was 13% and 10% for the 500-mg and
203 The
overall response rate was 13% with 2 patients achieving
204 Overall response rate was 16% (95% CI, 11% to 23%), with
205 The
overall response rate was 17 of 43 patients (40%) at 3 t
206 Overall response rate was 17% (95% CI, 5% to 37%); four
207 o were evaluable for antitumor activity, the
overall response rate was 18.5%, the median time to resp
208 nts refractory to rituximab monotherapy, the
overall response rate was 22%.
209 ho received doses of >/=1.5 mg/kg AFM13, the
overall response rate was 23% and the disease control ra
210 (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P = .0035);
overall response rate was 23.3% of evaluable patients (9
211 Overall response rate was 23.7% with median duration of
212 The
overall response rate was 25% (95% CI, 11% to 45%; three
213 The
overall response rate was 27%, including responses in th
214 In 37 evaluable patients, the
overall response rate was 30%, including a complete resp
215 The
overall response rate was 30%, including responses in fo
216 Among the PTCL subtypes, the
overall response rate was 30%, whereas no responses were
217 The
overall response rate was 31% (one complete and 16 parti
218 Overall response rate was 31.1%, including 13 very good
219 The
overall response rate was 31.8%, with a 50% response rat
220 83 (median PFS, 6.0 v 5.6 months; P = .012);
overall response rate was 34.1% versus 33.0%; and diseas
221 The
overall response rate was 34.5% (1 near-complete respons
222 Overall response rate was 35% (arm 21/28) and 34% (arm 2
223 The CR/CRi rate was 20% and
overall response rate was 35%.
224 The
overall response rate was 36% in the cohort that receive
225 Among 38 evaluable patients, the
overall response rate was 36.8%: 47.1% in Sezary syndrom
226 At day 28, the
overall response rate was 38.2% with 5 complete response
227 The
overall response rate was 40% (6 of 15).
228 ng patients with relapsed or refractory AML,
overall response rate was 40.3%, with a median response
229 Overall response rate was 41%; 39% of patients had stabl
230 The
overall response rate was 43% (95% CI, 22% to 66%), incl
231 ab-refractory, and rituximab-naive patients,
overall response rate was 43%, 44%, and 53%; median prog
232 %; refractory to previous regimen: 60%), the
overall response rate was 44% (7 CR, 4 CRp) with a 67.3-
233 The
overall response rate was 44% (7/16; 95% confidence inte
234 Overall response rate was 44% (MCL, 75%; FL, 38%; DLBCL,
235 Overall response rate was 48% (291 of 610); 88% (257 of
236 In patients with MF/Sezary syndrome, the
overall response rate was 50% (five of 10 patients) in p
237 ups (HR, 1.094; 95% CI, 0.991 to 1.209), and
overall response rate was 50% versus 51% (odds ratio, 0.
238 The
overall response rate was 50%.
239 nts with measurable disease at baseline, the
overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively
240 Overall response rate was 53% (151/284) with 49.0% (74/1
241 Overall response rate was 53% (20% complete response) an
242 The confirmed
overall response rate was 53% (95% confidence interval [
243 Overall response rate was 55.5% on PCG and 43.6% on GC (
244 The
overall response rate was 57% (13/23) across all patient
245 The
overall response rate was 57% (95% CI 42-71).
246 The
overall response rate was 60% (95% confidence interval [
247 The
overall response rate was 60%, while treatment-related m
248 The
overall response rate was 64.2% (88 of 137), representin
249 For the intention-to-treat analysis, the
overall response rate was 65%, including 29% complete re
250 The
overall response rate was 66%, including 12% complete re
251 he rate of complete response was 10% and the
overall response rate was 66%.
252 The
overall response rate was 67% in the dabrafenib-trametin
253 At the MTD (n = 67 patients), the
overall response rate was 67%, and at least minimal resp
254 nd n=158 (46.4%) from the control group; the
overall response rate was 67%, and did not differ signif
255 The
overall response rate was 69% (complete remission [CR],
256 t 60 mug/m(2)/day (target dose; n = 35), the
overall response rate was 69% across NHL subtypes and 55
257 The
overall response rate was 72% (complete remission [R]/ma
258 The
overall response rate was 72%, with 39% of patients meet
259 The
overall response rate was 74%, with 30% complete remissi
260 Overall response rate was 75%.
261 Overall response rate was 77% (15 complete responses and
262 In part 2 (median follow-up of 15.6 months),
overall response rate was 81%, with 8 stringent complete
263 tients (median age, 60 years; men, 73%), the
overall response rate was 82% (55% complete response/com
264 The
overall response rate was 83% with ABVD and 88% with Sta
265 The
overall response rate was 86% (n = 36).
266 ter induction and consolidation therapy, the
overall response rate was 86%, with 69% complete remissi
267 The
overall response rate was 86%, with responses observed a
268 Overall response rate was 87.1% (1 complete response, 10
269 In these 63 patients, the
overall response rate was 88% (including 53% complete re
270 Overall response rate was 88.0% (95% CI, 80.7% to 100.0%
271 ne, and a platinum derivative [R-DHAP]), the
overall response rate was 89%, and the complete response
272 The cumulative
overall response rate was 90%, comprising complete respo
273 The
overall response rate was 90.5%, and the major response
274 The
overall response rate was 93% after (R)-CHOP and 95% aft
275 At a median follow-up of 14.3 months, the
overall response rate was 95%, including 85% with a part
276 Overall response rate was 95%.
277 The
overall response rate was 98% (59 of 60) with 80% (48 of
278 Overall response rate was also higher in the T-VEC arm (
279 The
overall response rate was comparable between the two arm
280 ncy across study results (I = 98.3%) and the
overall response rate was low.
281 The
overall response rate was significantly higher in the ib
282 In addition, the
overall response rate was significantly higher in the VT
283 The
overall response rate was significantly higher with CTDa
284 The
overall response rate was the same in the group that rec
285 all survival, progression-free survival, and
overall response rate were 15.3 months, 7.4 months, and
286 Overall response rates were 13% and 10%, respectively.
287 Overall response rates were 16.4% and 25.5%, respectivel
288 Best
overall response rates were 37% in the 1,600/800-mg arm
289 Overall response rates were 58% (95% CI, 43% to 71%) for
290 During 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, the
overall response rates were 71%, 71%, 68%, and 60%, resp
291 Overall response rates were 73% (VD), 80% (VTD), and 70%
292 Overall response rates were 76% (4 complete responses).
293 Overall response rates were 84%, with CR achieved in 10%
294 Overall response rates were 88%, 93%, and 91% for R-CVP,
295 Overall response rates were 91% with FCR and 90% with FC
296 After a median follow-up of 6.6 years,
overall response rates were 93%, with a very good partia
297 The
overall response rates were 96% (25 of 26 patients who c
298 may have had on our results because of poor
overall response rates,
which ranged from 11.4% for land
299 The authors report a higher
overall response rate with higher doses of obinutuzumab
300 Overall response rate with R-CHOP and VR-CHOP was 98% an