ライフサイエンスコーパス: response rate

1 Los Angeles SEER registries (N = 2,372; 68% response rate).

2 sample of schools (SchoolNuts, n = 9663; 48% response rate).

3 d 80 kilometers west of the epicenter (59.0% response rate).

4 ents imaged, 126 surveys were completed (84% response rate).

5 m were enrolled in the study (92.1% positive response-rate).

6 rimarily owing to an elevated false-positive response rate.

7 cluded in an intent-to-treat analysis of the response rate.

8 present the treatment of choice, with a good response rate.

9 Bev is associated with a significant overall response rate.

10 The primary end point was the overall response rate.

11 all survival, PFS by HA level, and objective response rate.

12 lation between BRCA2 inactivation and a poor response rate.

13 rmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and overall response rate.

14 val, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate.

15 The primary end point was response rate.

16 om spike patterns that noisily represent its response rate.

17 nts inhibiting these pathways would increase response rates.

18 77 patients clinically evaluable for overall response rates.

19 lls contributing to differences in objective response rates.

20 tolerated dose, pharmacokinetic profile, and response rates.

21 edotin is effective in treating LyP (overall response rate, 100%; complete response rate, 58%), but i

22 The overall sustained virologic response rate 12 weeks after the end of treatment was 93

23 afety profile and high sustained virological response rates 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR1

24 urrent results reflect a substantially lower response rate (21% vs. 31% and 49%, respectively) and an

25 Overall response rate (27% v 10%) and median duration of respons

26 many methodological strengths, lower placebo response rates (30%-35%), and meaningful between-group d

27 with a significant improvement in objective response rate (31% vs 0%; P = .04) but not clinical bene

28 Both arms yielded similar complete response rate (42% and 40%), median PFS (32 months vs 34

29 tacted, and 59 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 43%).

30 of doses and disease subtypes: iNHL overall response rate, 58% (n = 31) with 6 complete responses (C

31 g LyP (overall response rate, 100%; complete response rate, 58%), but its use should be reserved for

32 surveyed providers, 1234 responded (adjusted response rate, 64%): 63% were white, 11% black, 11% Hisp

33 ing a significantly higher 5-year cumulative response rate (67.6% compared with 40.9%) and a signific

34 bout genetic testing experiences (N = 3,672; response rate, 68%).

35 he objective response rate was 26% (complete response rate, 7%) to the next line of therapy, and the

36 cancer between July 2013 and September 2014 (response rate, 71.0%) were accrued through 2 population-

37 who completed baseline and 6-month surveys (response rate, 71.2%), 762 had complete cancer-related d

38 inpatient units of Suffolk County, New York (response rate, 72%).

39 -2009 and 2010-2015, respectively (follow-up response rate 73.9%).

40 rall response rate was 89%, and the complete response rate 77%.

41 n achieved a partial response (CNS objective response rate, 8%; 95% CI, 2% to 22%).

42 8 interns, 870 completed the initial survey (response rate 83%), 836 of which had linkage data (96%).

43 In this study, we evaluate objective response rate after therapy with the gamma-secretase inh

44 P backbone is under investigation to enhance response rates, allow a higher proportion of patients to

45 f DAA combination therapies suggest improved response rates, although the adequate duration of therap

46 xty-two patients were enrolled; the complete response rate among all treated patients (n = 61) was 61

47 A limited response rate among DRCR.net members identified 22 compa

48 eceived durvalumab plus cediranib, for a 50% response rate and a 75% disease control rate.

49 To compare the overall response rate and assess the safety of a proposed trastu

50 The response rate and disease control rate in assessable pat

51 After treatment, the overall response rate and disease control rate were 7.9% and 47.

52 ng clinical activity characterised by a high response rate and durable response.

53 er a molecular basis to improve the clinical response rate and efficacy of PD-1-PD-L1 blockade in pat

54 Response rate and kinetics of response were independent

55 reatment protocol was associated with a good response rate and outcome.

56 Response rate and pharmacokinetic analysis were secondar

57 erior to the double combinations in terms of response rate and progression-free survival (PFS).

58 s randomized phase 2 study, we evaluated the response rate and toxicity of panobinostat, a pan-HDI ad

59 Response rates and acceptability (dropout rate).

60 Lower response rates and delayed responses to ibrutinib are as

61 ons including combination therapy to augment response rates and durability are ongoing.

62 Ibrutinib produces high response rates and durable remissions in Waldenstrom mac

63 sated cirrhosis receiving DAAs present lower response rates and experience more SAEs.

64 ients with this disease has resulted in high response rates and improved survival, yet relapse and an

65 ye toward making a more meaningful impact on response rates and modification of the natural history o

66 Response rates and overall survival were estimated from

67 O6-benzylguanine resulted in higher overall response rates and reduced total carmustine doses but wa

68 ted subsets of solid tumors, elicit improved response rates and survival compared with standard chemo

69 ooled retrospective analysis to characterize response rates and survival for a population of patients

70 However, the low response rates and the high inconsistency across studies

71 h the high AD threshold associated with high response rates and the low median AD per unit of (131)I

72 rvival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate, and duration of response-as well as safet

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

74 nd points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety.

75 ts included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety.

76 overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, and toxic effects.

77 points were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and toxicity.

78 vival and progression-free survival, overall response rates, and rates of R0 surgical conversions and

79 e of rs28365143 had greater remission rates, response rates, and symptom reductions.

80 Because response rates are around 20% in the majority of clinica

81 sured in three different ways: as changes in response rates, as adaptations of spectrotemporal recept

82 unosuppressive therapy (IST) and may improve response rates, as recently shown with thrombopoietin an

83 Sustained virological response rate at 12 weeks (SVR12) was 83% overall.

84 rastuzumab resulted in an equivalent overall response rate at 24 weeks.

85 The response rate at 3 mo was 31 of 54 (57%; 95% confidence

86 bjective was to formally assess the complete response rate at 30 months (CR30) after initiation of in

87 The overall response rates at 6 months were 80%, 87%, and 94%, respe

88 ACR20 response rates at month 3 were 50% in the 5-mg tofacitin

89 There was no significant difference in response rates between cisplatin-etoposide and carboplat

90 Secondary end points were objective response rate by immune-related response criteria and sa

91 The confirmed objective response rate by independent central review was 18.2% (9

92 hese patients who were restaged, the overall response rate by IWCLL imaging criteria 4 weeks after in

93 Patients attaining a CMR had a 96% overall response rate by IWG criteria, with 62.5% achieving a co

94 Objective response rate by modified WHO criteria was 42%, and medi

95 campaign that shows a threefold increase in response rate by targeting individuals identified by our

96 t intensity, allogeneic transplantation, and response rates by education and income level using logis

97 Response rates by RECIST: partial response (PR) 21% (17/

98 We compared response rates by treatment group using chi-square tests

99 rade procedures were associated with a lower response rate compared to the de novo group (57% versus

100 weeks after CAR-T cell infusion, the overall response rate (complete response [CR] and/or partial res

101 Whereas the conditioning response rate decreased under alcohol intake in controls

102 The primary efficacy measure was response rate, defined as a decrease of >/=50% in baseli

103 Secondary efficacy outcomes included the response rate, defined as at least a 50% improvement in

104 Nine-week response rates did not differ significantly between the

105 ice in the differential reinforcement of low response rate (DRL) task.

106 end points were overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety.

107 points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, effects on disease-

108 omes even more effective, keeping stimulated response rates equal to spontaneous ones.

109 The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-rela

110 The response rate for arm B was 60% (complete, 10%; partial,

111 The overall response rate for patients with IMT (treated at 100, 165

112 Similar to imatinib, the partial response rate for regorafenib by Choi (29%) was higher c

113 The treatment response rate for the overall sample was 62.7% (N=89), w

114 gimen Selection), may significantly increase response rates for breast cancer patients, especially th

115 was 95.28%, and predicted overall objective response rates for group data in 66 of 67 drug studies.

116 Results The overall response rates for patients with ALCL treated at doses o

117 Unfortunately, response rates for this strategy remain low.

118 participants was included (34% [100 of 297] response rate from paper survey, 23% [41 of 179] from on

119 ion-based study of 10033 participants (78.7% response rate) from 3 racial/ethnic groups (Chinese [rec

120 n conventional chemotherapy, and encouraging response rates have been reported in various settings.

121 High response rates have been reported with the use of T cell

122 oal of this study was to assess the complete response rate in a retrospective cohort of HCC patients

123 point was treatment efficacy measured as the response rate in patients who completed therapy and the

124 latrexate plus romidepsin resulted in a high response rate in patients with previously treated PTCL.

125 he primary objectives were the HZ/su vaccine response rate in the coadministration group and the noni

126 The HZ/su vaccine response rate in the coadministration group was 95.8% (9

127 se inhibitor ibrutinib has demonstrated high response rates in B-cell lymphomas; however, a growing n

128 o, resulted in significantly higher clinical response rates in both trials at 12 weeks; rates of seri

129 associated with similar switch and treatment response rates in participants with bipolar II depressio

130 progression-free survival and provide better response rates in patients with previously untreated mul

131 The overall response rates in patients with PTCL and CTCL were 50.0%

132 In contrast, carboplatin increased response rates in patients without BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutat

133 py may be warranted on the basis of improved response rates in rituximab-sensitive disease.

134 nhibitor venetoclax shows promising clinical response rates in several lymphomas, but is not curative

135 The complete and overall response rates in the combined cohorts were higher than

136 nhibitor vemurafenib produced an almost 100% response rate, including complete remission rates of 35%

137 difference between treatment arms in PB-MRD response rates increased, a reduction in the risk of pro

138 m in up to 6 lesions, to determine metabolic response rates, indicated by negative posttreatment scan

139 However, its response rate is only 20-30%.

140 red a gold standard in chemotherapy, its 21% response rate leaves much room for further improvement.

141 nts post-LT, treatment sustained virological response rates, LT costs, and baseline Model for End-Sta

142 utcome measures are problematic, because low response rates may cause bias.

143 nt approximately 2 months after surgery (71% response rate, n = 2578).

144 nosetron was associated with higher complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medications) com

145 The overall cutaneous response rate (OCRR) was defined as complete (final cuta

146 nts were treated with R-CHOP with an overall response rate of 100% (complete responses 89%).

147 ORR was 37.5% with a complete response rate of 12.5%, median progression-free survival

148 Combination chemotherapy yields a response rate of 24% and a clinical benefit rate (CR/PR/

149 Patients with a BRCA2 mutation showed a response rate of 25% to docetaxel in comparison to 71.1%

150 Among 47 evaluable patients, an objective response rate of 32% was observed, including 11 (23%) co

151 ctive response rate was 62%, with a complete response rate of 33% per immune-related response criteri

152 rior lines of therapy (n = 23), an objective response rate of 39%, PFS of 6.7 months, and duration of

153 target sample size was set to demonstrate a response rate of 40% or more (bilateral alpha = 0.05, po

154 Our approach results in a response rate of 40% or more, with acceptable toxicity.

155 ompleted and returned the survey, yielding a response rate of 40%.

156 IDH2 (mIDH2) inhibitor, produced an overall response rate of 40.3% in relapsed/refractory AML (rrAML

157 re assessed via an electronic survey, with a response rate of 40.8% (156/382 surveys).

158 A range of response rate of 70%-80% was achieved at an AD threshold

159 ns from 30 sites across 5 remoteness strata (response rate of 71.5%).

160 We achieved a response rate of 71.8% (n = 541 of 753).

161 (36%) were partial responders for an overall response rate of 72% (10 of 14).

162 stine-rituximab (BR) demonstrated an overall response rate of 82% among 45 patients with relapsed or

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

164 516 patients achieved SVR, a response rate of 86% (95% CI, 83.0% to 88.7%), with no m

165 on produced a cumulative complete or partial response rate of 92% (95% CI, 78.1% to 98.3%) overall an

166 35 and above years were participated with a response rate of 99.3%.

167 hropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), with a response rate of approximately 50%.

168 est wall lesions in breast cancer results in response rates of 20% to 30%.

169 cosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 23.3% (95% CI, 14.8% to 33.6%) and 40.

170 ts with relapsed/refractory PTCL, exhibiting response rates of 25% and 29% respectively.

171 cosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 37.1% (95% CI, 21.5% to 55.1%) and 60.

172 ugs (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus, which have response rates of 95% or more, represent a major clinica

173 Intrigued by the unique response rates of AL amyloidosis patients to the first-i

174 receptors that could be exploited to enhance response rates of current immunotherapeutic agents and a

175 end points included minimal residual disease response, rate of allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell tra

176 d not differ in mean change in MADRS scores, response rate, or in any secondary efficacy outcomes.

177 ial response (PR) in four patients [(overall response rate (ORR) = 9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3

178 Overall response rate (ORR) and minimal residual disease (MRD) b

179 ndary/exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS).

180 al (PFS), and odds ratios (OR) for objective response rate (ORR) and serious adverse events.

181 ndependent review committee-assessed overall response rate (ORR) by 2007 International Working Group

182 The primary outcome was week 24 overall response rate (ORR) defined as complete or partial respo

183 xor showed modest efficacy with an objective response rate (ORR) of 4% and clinical benefit rate of 2

184 inase/KIT inhibitor, demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 60% in advSM but biomarkers predi

185 To evaluate the safety and objective response rate (ORR) of imiquimod in combination with sys

186 Overall response rate (ORR) to first KI was 62% (complete respon

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

188 The overall response rate (ORR) was 21% (14/66), and 15% achieved ve

189 e efficacy-evaluable population, the overall response rate (ORR) was 56% (29/52) and was similar betw

190 The overall response rate (ORR) was 67% (44/66); 42% achieved very g

191 Adjusting for number of doses, objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in patients

192 (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were assessed according to tumor loc

193 milestone rates were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) within 6 months, 9-month progression

194 Objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, and safety were s

195 The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR).

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

197 The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR).

198 The primary outcome was overall response rate (ORR).

199 ed, and prognosis is generally poor (overall response rate [ORR] 0% to 25%; 2-year overall survival 1

200 omide or vorinostat produce superior overall response rates (ORRs) to azacitidine is not known.

201 M) resulted in an above-chance-level correct response rate over 70%.

202 Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and the side-ef

203 cantly effectiveness and safety in objective response rate (P < 0.001), survival time extension [12 m

204 ociated with a significantly better complete response rate (P = .04) and progression-free survival (P

205 response after chemotherapy had higher renal response rates (P = .0001) and median renal survival (ha

206 The primary end point was overall response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid

207 dpoint was independently confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid

208 platinum-based therapy to determine overall response rate, progression-free and overall survival, ph

209 The correct response rates ranged from 52 to 86% for the interpretat

210 inators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to be important (95% of

211 e cell therapies (ACT) in melanoma, complete response rates remain relatively low and outcomes in oth

212 ith advanced colon cancer, but their durable response rate remains low.

213 of the 392 eligible patients, a 77% and 83% response rate respectively.

214 eligible 451 nurses responded, a 49% and 39% response rate, respectively.

215 dary objectives included confirmed objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tum

216 Primary end points: overall response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tum

217 ility for the escalation phase and objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tum

218 e: confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (RR) and whether ETS fusions predicted res

219 end points were overall survival (OS), tumor response rate, safety, and quality of life, analyzed by

220 primary end points were safety and objective response rate; secondary end points were progression-fre

221 cluded progression-free survival and overall response rate, site-reported confirmed or unconfirmed co

222 -free survival and prostate-specific antigen response rates suggest antitumor activity in a patient s

223 ION: Atezolizumab showed encouraging durable response rates, survival, and tolerability, supporting i

224 ion-free survival and a significantly higher response rate than high-dose octreotide LAR among patien

225 ression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial i

226 had a significantly higher 5-year cumulative response rate than those in the treatment-as-usual group

227 The overall hematologic response rate to daratumumab was 76%, including CR in 36

228 The objective response rate to FOLFOXIRI-Bev was 69% (95% CI, 65%-72%;

229 The response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for

230 The response rate to individual antigenic regions correlated

231 We evaluated whether response rates to treatment with omalizumab in patients

232 bination treatments in an effort to increase response rates to treatment.

233 The proportion responding (overall response rate) to bevacizumab was 28.2% among 39 patient

234 gistic regression, weighted for sampling and response rates, to assess associations between quartiles

235 Response rate varies by treatment choice.

236 ch strategy was associated with improved PSA response rates versus TAX327.

237 Results The response rate was 12% (n = 694, 109 invitations were und

238 Overall response rate was 16% (95% CI, 11% to 23%), with a media

239 Overall response rate was 17% (95% CI, 5% to 37%); four patients

240 The response rate was 18% in the (177)Lu-Dotatate group vers

241 The objective response rate was 20% (95% CI 15-26) in patients treated

242 Objective response rate was 20.1% with selumetinib + docetaxel and

243 The objective response rate was 21% (complete response = 4 [8%]; parti

244 Objective response rate was 21% overall and 27% in the RCC subset.

245 17.2 months' median follow-up, the objective response rate was 23% (95% CI 16 to 31), the complete re

246 atients with refractory DLBCL, the objective response rate was 26% (complete response rate, 7%) to th

247 evaluable patients, the confirmed objective response rate was 26%, including one complete and 11 par

248 12) since diagnosis, the confirmed objective response rate was 30% (partial response, n = 19; complet

249 The response rate was 33%.

250 The overall survey response rate was 38.1% (1793/4707) among 31 hospitals.

251 At day 28, the overall response rate was 38.2% with 5 complete responses (CRs;

252 nts with relapsed or refractory AML, overall response rate was 40.3%, with a median response duration

253 w-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing respo

254 The overall response rate was 43% (95% CI, 22% to 66%), including on

255 Overall response rate was 44% (MCL, 75%; FL, 38%; DLBCL, 18%).

256 The overall biochemical response rate was 45% after all therapy cycles, whereas

257 ith HA-high tumors (PAG v AG), the objective response rate was 45% versus 31%, and median overall sur

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

259 The overall clinical response rate was 52% (9 of 17) (6% [1 of 17] complete r

260 Overall, the hematologic response rate was 52% in patients treated at the MTD (n

261 The overall radiological response rate was 54% (8 of 15) (all partial response),

262 tive response rate was 82%, and the complete response rate was 54%.With a median follow-up of 15.4 mo

263 The overall response rate was 57% (13/23) across all patients and 71

264 The objective response rate was 58.3% for patients who discontinued be

265 Confirmed objective response rate was 62%, with a complete response rate of

266 of complete response was 10% and the overall response rate was 66%.

267 Overall response rate was 77% (15 complete responses and 8 parti

268 The response rate was 79%.

269 The objective response rate was 82%, and the complete response rate wa

270 The response rate was 82%.

271 Objective response rate was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73-

272 The overall clinical response rate was 88%, with a mean (SD) duration of comp

273 a platinum derivative [R-DHAP]), the overall response rate was 89%, and the complete response rate 77

274 rate was 23% (95% CI 16 to 31), the complete response rate was 9% (n=11), and 19 of 27 responses were

275 Overall response rate was 95%.

276 Overall, the sustained virological response rate was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93-

277 The sustained virologic response rate was 98% (102 of 104 patients; 95% confiden

278 l over placebo (4.8 vs. 0.9 months), but the response rate was low at 4.5%.

279 ss study results (I = 98.3%) and the overall response rate was low.

280 In addition, the overall response rate was significantly higher in the VTD arm (9

281 udy met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene l

282 A significant absolute difference in response rates was observed at month 12 between the 250-

283 Partial response rates were 0% (none of six), 10% (two of 20), a

284 Confirmed radiologic response rates were 12% (95% CI, 8% to 18%) for bevacizu

285 re was -14.3 vs -7.5 (P = .0096), histologic response rates were 39% vs 3% (P < .0001), and change in

286 Cytogenetic response rates were 61% and 25% (P = .02), respectively.

287 ring 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, the overall response rates were 71%, 71%, 68%, and 60%, respectively

288 Response rates were 91 to 97% across the three rounds.

289 Survey response rates were 97% and 99% in round 1 and round 2,

290 Response rates were higher among patients with an unfavo

291 Conclusion Tumor response rates were lower than in prior reports of trast

292 Response rates were not significantly different, 59.6% v

293 Response rates were significantly higher among patients

294 Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment groups in

295 Response rates were similar in all HPV and PD-L1 subgrou

296 Sustained virological response rates were sourced from ASTRAL-4, SOLAR-1, and

297 BIT), we included 13,557 participants (79.5% response rate) who completed the Children's Eating Attit

298 es showed a higher prostate-specific antigen response rate with ipilimumab (23%) than with placebo (8

299 Overall response rate with R-CHOP and VR-CHOP was 98% and 96%, r

300 th BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations showed superior response rates without additive effects observed for car