ライフサイエンスコーパス: overall survival

1 -year recurrence-free, disease-specific, and overall survival.

2 machine-learning approach for prediction of overall survival.

3 ressing both genes are associated with worse overall survival.

4 s, improved locomotive capacity and extended overall survival.

5 ee survival and 83% (95% CI, 71% to 91%) for overall survival.

6 Heart doses were not associated with overall survival.

7 disease location, treatment modalities, and overall survival.

8 eliac disease status was not associated with overall survival.

9 ock, 15 patients were still in follow-up for overall survival.

10 responders ( 10%) and associated with poorer overall survival.

11 ic treatment that has been shown to increase overall survival.

12 siveness to neoadjuvant therapy, and reduced overall survival.

13 istal metastasis and substantially prolonged overall survival.

14 lly distinct and were associated with better overall survival.

15 particularly in terms of the improvement of overall survival.

16 and negatively correlated with the patients' overall survival.

17 ed tumor response to etoposide and increased overall survival.

18 relates with the colorectal cancer patients' overall survival.

19 ee survival and 79% (95% CI, 63% to 89%) for overall survival.

20 tic subgroups, as was remission duration and overall survival.

21 in the latter case correlated inversely with overall survival.

22 iated with receipt of active HCC therapy and overall survival.

23 High ST2 and TIM3 correlated with overall survival.

24 nts had the highest discriminatory power for overall survival.

25 days), tau was significantly associated with overall survival.

26 The primary end point was the rate of overall survival.

27 ncluded recurrence of endometrial cancer and overall survival.

28 perative outcomes, short-term mortality, and overall survival.

29 l of maximizing local control and increasing overall survival.

30 for larynx preservation without compromising overall survival.

31 are associated with rapid relapse and short overall survival.

32 etrics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival.

33 The primary end point was overall survival.

34 transplant (SCT, p = 0.0005) predicted poor overall survival.

35 BCSC properties and are correlated with poor overall survival.

36 his genetic deletion is associated with poor overall survival.

37 udies were designed for combined analysis of overall survival.

38 ies (6302 patients) with whole cohort 5-year overall survival, 11 studies with 5-year survival strati

39 e survival (33 vs 27 months, P = 0.502), and overall survival (51 vs 45 months, P = 0.671) were obser

40 Still, 5-year overall survival (89% +/- 3% vs 90% +/- 4%; Plog-rank =

41 s (95% CI, 3.2 to 7.1 months) and median ITT overall survival, 9.5 months (95% CI, 5.9 to 16.7 months

42 rvival, transplant-related mortality, and/or overall survival after BMT.

43 Median overall survival after detection of intestinal metastasi

44 l allele, which is associated with decreased overall survival after DNA damage-inducing platinum chem

45 number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and overall survival after DNA damaging chemotherapy, wherea

46 y at HLA-I loci ("A," "B," and "C") improved overall survival after ICB compared with patients who we

47 Median overall survival after osimertinib progression was 5.4 m

48 y the risk factors for determination of poor overall survival after RFA.

49 he impact of age and BC molecular subtype on overall survival after RT using a meta-analysis of the M

50 l; the primary endpoint was later changed to overall survival after the data cutoff for this analysis

51 A trend toward improved overall survival also favored nintedanib (HR, 0.77; 95%

52 antially reduce ethnic/racial disparities in overall survival among nonelderly women diagnosed with b

53 ree survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival among patients with mantle-cell lymphom

54 astuzumab emtansine after the second interim overall survival analysis (median follow-up duration 24.

55 astuzumab emtansine after the second interim overall survival analysis crossed the prespecified overa

56 We report results from the final overall survival analysis of the TH3RESA trial.

57 Main secondary end points were overall survival and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome a

58 ature as an accurate prognostic predictor of overall survival and chemoresponse.

59 Overall survival and disease-specific survival.

60 For overall survival and distant metastases, pretreatment co

61 months, the study reveals no differences in overall survival and EFS between the control (EFS, 35% +

62 the subgroup analyses, clofarabine improved overall survival and EFS for European Leukemia Net (ELN)

63 significantly improved progression-free and overall survival and had an acceptable risk-benefit prof

64 Posttreatment PET/CT (Deauville) predicts overall survival and has better specificity in compariso

65 red SHFM-predicted versus observed survival (overall survival and LVAD-free survival) in the optimal

66 gnificantly impact both progression-free and overall survival and may act as drivers of the disease.

67 nventional BCPR was associated with improved overall survival and neurologically favorable survival w

68 Model validation for prediction of overall survival and non-relapse mortality by EASIX-GVHD

69 bitory activity assay and indicated improved overall survival and significantly reduced rates of rela

70 Secondary end points included overall survival and subgroup analyses of event-free sur

71 There was a significant association between overall survival and SUVr in the residual lesion (P = .0

72 t the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) for overall survival and the Seattle Proportional Risk Model

73 The median overall survival and treatment duration were 85.8 and 40

74 ndependent methods were developed to predict overall survival and were evaluated through the DREAM ch

75 for association with a traditional endpoint (overall survival) and for its potential use as an endpoi

76 treatment tumor heterogeneity predicts worse overall survival, and further observe alterations in cel

77 otherapy affected progression-free survival, overall survival, and pulmonary toxicity in the intentio

78 ults in satisfactory event-free survival and overall survival, and to correlate relapse with biomarke

79 s, local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival are good with radiation treatment.

80 tality, GVHD-free relapse-free survival, and overall survival at 1 year were 19%, 16%, 47%, and 76%,

81 with a 64% recurrence-free survival and 59% overall survival at 3 years.

82 Overall survival at 4 years did not differ significantly

83 Overall survival at 7 years was 66%.

84 e of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfr

85 ncer, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the addition of cetuximab vs be

86 than with SRS and there was no difference in overall survival between the treatment groups.

87 this second interim analysis was to compare overall survival between the two treatment groups.

88 Finally, KV1-05 was associated with inferior overall survival but not independently of cardiac stage.

89 The unadjusted median overall survival by facility volume was: Q1: 26.9 months

90 h a statistically significant improvement in overall survival compared with RT alone (hazard ratio, 0

91 nificantly earlier disease onset and reduced overall survival, compared to controls.

92 The primary outcome measure was overall survival (defined as the difference in time betw

93 tcome for the phase 3 stage of the trial was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation

94 The primary endpoint in both populations was overall survival (defined as the time from the date of r

95 b induction remained a prognostic factor for overall survival despite treatment stratification.

96 etuximab group and 593 in the control group, overall survival did not differ between the treatment gr

97 In the IC2/3 population (n=234), overall survival did not differ significantly between pa

98 Times of disease-free survival and overall survival did not differ significantly between pa

99 Overall survival, disease-specific survival (DSS), and p

100 Overall survival, disease-specific survival, and progres

101 Multivariate models were built for overall survival, distant metastases, and local recurren

102 Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, free

103 The median overall survival duration was significantly longer for p

104 l survival analysis crossed the prespecified overall survival efficacy boundary.

105 POBEC3A expression is associated with better overall survival, especially among patients carrying APO

106 Overall survival estimates after LT were 80%, 77%, and 7

107 (chronic lung allograft dysfunction-free and overall survival) follow-up were compared over a median

108 Three-year PFS and overall survival for all patients were 71.4% and 80.5%,

109 The median overall survival for children with diffuse intrinsic pon

110 e or retrospective studies reporting data on overall survival for left-sided colon cancer (LCC) compa

111 oved 1-y survival, duration of response, and overall survival for patients with relapsed or refractor

112 reduction in 4-year EFS from 87% to 75% and overall survival from 95% to 88%.

113 Median overall survival from the start of chemotherapy was 29 m

114 Median overall survival had not been reached in either group (

115 overall response, progression-free survival, overall survival, haematological improvement measured by

116 There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% CI 0.90-1.

117 ndependent prognostic factor with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50, P = .003) an

118 the suggestion that this also led to shorter overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 0.95-5.04

119 PDW was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.480; 95% confidence in

120 n=239), EASIX-GVHD was a strong predictor of overall survival (HR for a two-fold change of 1.23, 95%

121 rrelation between log[NFL] concentration and overall survival (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.66-3.61; P < .001)

122 Overall survival improvement was similar in patients wit

123 with ABCC4 in AML, is associated with worse overall survival in AML.

124 al burden in lung and spleen and a prolonged overall survival in animals that received a transplant.

125 ry), inferior event-free survival as well as overall survival in both trials.

126 d TET1 activation is associated with a worse overall survival in breast, uterine and ovarian cancers.

127 Median overall survival in group I, II, and III was 29, 36, and

128 of motor symptoms to onset of dementia, and overall survival in groups with varying levels of comorb

129 rongly predicts poor event-free survival and overall survival in multiple cohorts of AML patients rec

130 ion between high GPAM expression and reduced overall survival in ovarian cancer.

131 However, overall survival in patients receiving radiotherapy rema

132 all trial population of 940 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response

133 In the subgroup of 691 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response

134 The estimated hazard ratio for overall survival in patients with follow-up HSCT (inotuz

135 on with cabazitaxel and prednisone increases overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-

136 istics and determine factors associated with overall survival in primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL

137 may become more frequent due to the improved overall survival in recent years.

138 patients with EGFR FISH-positive cancer and overall survival in the entire study population.

139 The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population an

140 Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population di

141 infections, treatment-related mortality, and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population.

142 The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population.

143 Estimated median overall survival in the once-a-week arm was 39.5 months

144 Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population wa

145 However, the improvement in overall survival is modest and only in combination with

146 orubicin chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival, leading to FDA approval.

147 Secondary end points included overall survival, local and regional PFS, distant metast

148 Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of r

149 CP-B7 and >/=CP-B8 patients exhibited median overall survival of 6.9 mo (95% CI, 5.3-10.1 mo) and 3.9

150 sened with increasing HALT-HCC score (5-year overall survival of 78.7% [95% CI 76.9-80.4] for quartil

151 ylation levels at specific enhancers predict overall survival of AML patients.

152 Although the overall survival of children with solid tumours is 75%,

153 Although the overall survival of FL patients has recently improved wi

154 factors associated with CRT use and examined overall survival of patients receiving CRT versus RT.

155 me inhibitors (PIs) has greatly improved the overall survival of patients with MM.

156 Overall survival of patients with osteosarcoma (OS) has

157 To determine whether the 10-year overall survival of patients with sentinel lymph node me

158 To compare overall survival of PCS vs NACT in a large national popu

159 ficant relationship between elevated NLR and overall survival (OS) (p < 0.00001)/ cancer specific sur

160 estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for overall survival (OS) and CRC-specific survival.

161 e BSI can serve as a prognostic biomarker of overall survival (OS) and hematologic toxicity and as a

162 4 was a promising biomarker predicting worse overall survival (OS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS)

163 hree proteins has predictive performance for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS

164 ation between levels of WIF1 methylation and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS

165 ed to compare treatment effect sizes between overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS

166 which requires patient-specific estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS

167 ween the 2 arms as the primary end point and overall survival (OS) as the secondary end point.

168 hazards regression model was used to compare overall survival (OS) between RT dose groups, accounting

169 rolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with near-CR or partial r

170 FS), transformation-free survival (TFS), and overall survival (OS) compared with those without ACAs w

171 Surrogates for overall survival (OS) could expedite the evaluation of n

172 Here, we report the coprimary overall survival (OS) end point of CheckMate 037, which

173 osarcoma showed a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for the eribulin arm, with a manag

174 e of this study was to analyze the impact on overall survival (OS) from the addition of postoperative

175 tatus and progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 20 or more patients following t

176 Here, we assess EFS24 and subsequent overall survival (OS) in large, multinational PTCL cohor

177 pump chemotherapy (HAI) was associated with overall survival (OS) in patients who had a complete res

178 using the Shannon index and associated with overall survival (OS) in the 145 specimens collected pri

179 astration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), overall survival (OS) is significantly improved with cab

180 The primary end point was overall survival (OS) of patients who were prescribed st

181 The 8-year overall survival (OS) rate was 83% (95% CI, 79% to 87%),

182 Results Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 3 years were 80% and 87%,

183 The median overall survival (OS) was 30 months (95% confidence inte

184 g breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.

185 outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of local

186 the CMI and progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease status at first resta

187 y end points were patient-reported toxicity, overall survival (OS), and distant disease-free survival

188 Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR)

189 remission, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety outcomes of patients t

190 Primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points were pro

191 Clinical outcomes included overall survival (OS), event-free-survival, nonrelapse m

192 point was PFS; secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safe

193 Overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), and safety

194 well as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), was assessed using logistic regre

195 2; P < .0001) retained prognostic impact for overall survival (OS), whereas TP53 mutations (HR, 6.9;

196 local progression, event-free survival, and overall survival (OS).

197 ase, with decreased locoregional control and overall survival (OS).

198 al (PFS), and DHL was associated with poorer overall survival (OS).

199 f 22 variables those that were predictive of overall survival (OS).

200 Overall survival (OS).

201 orrelated with progression-free survival and overall survival (OS).

202 fety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS).

203 data from study CA209-004, including 3-year overall survival (OS).

204 Primary end point was overall survival (OS).

205 roctectomy (RP) in pathological outcomes and overall survival (OS).

206 at MICU1 overexpression correlates with poor overall survival (OS).

207 00c was associated with significantly better overall survival (OS).

208 sk factor for tumor-free surivival (TFS) and overall survival (OS).

209 d ratio [SHR], 5.83; P < .001) and a shorter overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 10.99; P < .001

210 sis, (2) survival information was available (overall survival [OS] was reported in the article as haz

211 ostate cancer-specific survival [PCSS], 78%; overall survival [OS], 69%), followed by basal prostate

212 ferences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-year overall survival(OS) and disease free survival(DFS) betw

213 Overall survival outcomes are affected by baseline liver

214 We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial.

215 GemErlo for 24 weeks did not improve DFS or overall survival over Gem.

216 t benefit with lapatinib in terms of PFS and overall survival ( P > .05 for each).

217 id not impact disease-specific (P = 0.14) or overall survival (P = 0.11) after resection.

218 er mutations, and assessed associations with overall survival, progression-free survival, and surviva

219 oint estimates for weighted values of median overall survival, progression-free survival, response ra

220 Metastasis, biochemical recurrence, overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, ass

221 atients in the imatinib group, the estimated overall survival rate at 10 years was 83.3%.

222 24-month overall survival rate was 55% in the 2-week group, 55% i

223 The 3-year overall survival rate was 86% in the combination-therapy

224 The 5-year estimated overall survival rate was 89.9% for letrozole versus 89.

225 Although no statistical differences in overall survival rates among cohorts were observed, the

226 The 5-year event-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates are 85%, 96%, and 88%, respective

227 0-3; stage III, T4a-bN0-3 resulted in 3-year overall survival rates of 91%, 87%, 81%, and 70%, respec

228 better responses to radiotherapy and higher overall survival rates than do patients with HPV-negativ

229 71.0%, respectively; and 5-year and 10-year overall survival rates to be 78.9% and 73.5%, respective

230 rms, respectively, and the estimated 10-year overall survival rates were 19.4% and 21.5%, respectivel

231 dian follow-up duration of 6.5 years, 5-year overall survival rates were 44% in the FU plus LV arm an

232 The 2-year and 5-year overall survival rates were 52% (95% CI, 36%-66%) and 30

233 The 5-year event-free and overall survival rates were, respectively, 85% and 92.7%

234 ons with transplantation outcomes, including overall survival, relapse, and death without relapse.

235 Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and biomarker assessments.

236 at the planned interim analysis and declared overall survival superiority for nivolumab over investig

237 Nivolumab has been associated with longer overall survival than docetaxel among patients with prev

238 ether the combination would result in longer overall survival than lomustine alone among patients at

239 endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival; the primary endpoint was later changed

240 ity (CIN); we investigated associations with overall survival time and cancer recurrence using Kaplan

241 nd higher expression of TRIM28 had a shorter overall survival time.

242 The overall survival to hospital discharge after OHCA treate

243 n/(+)sepsis: HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.58-2.63], and overall survival [(+)transfusion: HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14-1

244 malignant transformation and show excellent overall survival under current treatment strategies.

245 ting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated

246 pembrolizumab continued to provide superior overall survival versus ipilimumab, with no difference b

247 .7% (95% confidence interval 84.1-95.2%) and overall survival was 100%.

248 For the entire study cohort, median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% CI, 4.1-27.2 month

249 Median overall survival was 11.4 mo (95% confidence interval, 9

250 response rate was 45% versus 31%, and median overall survival was 11.5 versus 8.5 months (HR, 0.96; 9

251 atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13.8 months [95% CI 11.8-15.7] vs 9

252 Median overall survival was 15.7 months (95% CI 11.6-17.8) for

253 =241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15.7 months [95% CI 12.6-18.0] with

254 6.0 (95% CI, 5.0 to 7.3) months, and median overall survival was 16.6 (95% CI, 11.1 to 20.6) months.

255 The 10-year estimate of overall survival was 23% (95% CI, 20%-26%).

256 T,: 16.6 months; TC, 5.6 months), and median overall survival was 25.7 months (T, not reached; TC, 14

257 ths (95% CI, 8.6-25.0 months) and the median overall survival was 25.8 months (95% CI, 15.7-25.8 mont

258 n follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twi

259 The median overall survival was 30.0 months in the cetuximab-chemot

260 Median pooled overall survival was 30.2 months (95% CI, 26.5-33.7 mont

261 With 12 months' follow-up on all patients, overall survival was 41% (95% confidence interval [CI],

262 3-year overall survival was 50.3% (95% CI 45.5-54.9) in the che

263 The median overall survival was 61.2 (interquartile range [IQR], 22

264 ion-free survival was 2.1 months, and median overall survival was 8 months.

265 artile range, 6.93-10.34 years), the 10-year overall survival was 86.3% in the SLND alone group and 8

266 was 69% (95% CI 60-75), and estimated 1 year overall survival was 89% (95% CI 83-93).

267 The rate of overall survival was 89% (95% CI, 81 to 94) in the ritux

268 e 80 patients was 6.9 years and their 5-year overall survival was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI],

269 The 3-year overall survival was 94%, and event-free survival (EFS)

270 The association of treatment approach with overall survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier met

271 Overall survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysi

272 Overall survival was estimated by using Kaplan-Meier sur

273 Overall survival was evaluated.

274 VRL vs OA-uveal DLBCL differed by 17.7%, and overall survival was greater in ophthalmic DLBCL than in

275 The likelihood of overall survival was higher in the nusinersen group than

276 At 5-year follow-up, overall survival was improved among patients who receive

277 In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared

278 Overall survival was increased in (+)-JQ1 treated mice c

279 Median overall survival was not reached for treated patients ov

280 sion-free survival (PFS) was 17.4 months and overall survival was not reached.

281 Overall survival was not reached.

282 Although the intention-to-treat analysis for overall survival was not significant, our sensitivity an

283 rednisone was reasonably well tolerated, but overall survival was not significantly longer for patien

284 No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed between the two groups (10

285 A modest improvement in overall survival was seen with exemestane; the absolute

286 Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizu

287 edian follow-up of 52 months (October 2016), overall survival was similar between arms (hazard ratio,

288 Median overall survival was similar between both arms with 10.0

289 The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 12.7 months and 34.7 months, respe

290 Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.6 and 6.9 months, respectively.

291 Median relapse-free survival and overall survival were 6.7 and 7.1 months, respectively.

292 The 5-year event-free survival and overall survival were 91.4% (95% confidence interval, 89

293 Baseline characteristics and overall survival were compared by chi and Kaplan-Meier m

294 Event-free survival and overall survival were determined for Ph-like ALL versus

295 Progression-free survival and overall survival were secondary end points.

296 nificant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patie

297 from a preplanned second interim analysis of overall survival, which was planned for when approximate

298 t in dysphagia progression-free survival and overall survival with chemoradiotherapy but at a cost of

299 a significant impact on metastatic risk and overall survival, with possible implications for definin

300 enografts reduced tumor burden and prolonged overall survival without affecting murine hematopoiesis.