ライフサイエンスコーパス: time to progression

1 CL2-positive subgroup (log-rank P < .001 for time to progression).

2 evels by alphaDC1 positively correlated with time to progression.

3 d not experience shorter overall survival or time to progression.

4 here was a 2.75-fold reduction in the median time to progression.

5 The primary end point of the study was time to progression.

6 ovariates predictive of overall survival and time to progression.

7 a higher CD8 count did not have an increased time to progression.

8 A), time to response, response duration, and time to progression.

9 he association of baseline relative CBV with time to progression.

10 ne tumor SUV(max) was associated with longer time to progression.

11 meshwork of SMZL infiltrates correlates with time to progression.

12 lic frequency and pooled overall survival or time to progression.

13 outcomes included safety, response rate, and time-to-progression.

14 and 67.0%]) and a follow-up analysis (median time to progression [23.4 months and 13.1 months]) have

15 , stable disease in 16 patients (80%; median time to progression, 34 mo), and progressive disease in

16 ence in response rates (48% v 43.6%), median time to progression (4.1 v 4.6 months), or overall survi

17 follow-up PET showed a significantly shorter time to progression (47 vs. 119 d; P < 0.001) and overal

18 (22% v 7%, respectively; P < .0001), median time to progression (5.3 v 2.8 months, respectively; P <

19 5.1 months (range, 0.2-27.7 months), median time to progression = 5.1 months (range, 0.2-27.7 months

20 documented relapsed follicular lymphoma and time to progression 6 months or longer from last rituxim

21 Patterns of failure and median time to progression (8.2 v 7.3 months; P = .67) were sim

22 superior for FOLFOX4 compared with rIFL for time to progression (9.7 v 5.5 months, respectively; P <

23 henotype and that positively correlated with time to progression, 95% were associated with immune fun

24 In addition, disease response and time to progression according to the Response Evaluation

25 of CA19-9 and sTRA had statistically longer time-to-progression after surgery.

26 atients treated with pemetrexed had a longer time to progression and a longer survival than their cou

27 ce therapy after ASCT significantly improved time to progression and could be considered a standard o

28 Median time to progression and duration of response were 5.5 an

29 Median time to progression and duration of response were 9.5 an

30 ity is an independent factor associated with time to progression and has potential as a predictive im

31 Median time to progression and median duration of response were

32 The median time to progression and median progression-free survival

33 7 and with clinical outcome measures such as time to progression and overall survival (OS).

34 onse to biochemotherapy (P = 0.02) and worse time to progression and overall survival (P = 0.009 and

35 That study showed improved time to progression and overall survival and an increase

36 The median time to progression and overall survival are promising a

37 has resulted in a significant improvement in time to progression and overall survival for patients wi

38 The estimated 1-year time to progression and overall survival rates were 9% (

39 Median time to progression and overall survival were 10 and 38

40 Median time to progression and overall survival were not reache

41 Time to progression and overall survival were significan

42 ed to the outcome (recurrence-free survival, time to progression and overall survival) in several can

43 ;14) have clinical importance for estimating time to progression and overall survival.

44 hs, no significant differences in the median time to progression and progression-free survival were o

45 of metastatic disease such as pain response, time to progression and progression-free survival, while

46 response rate was the primary end point, and time to progression and safety were secondary end points

47 CR/nPR was correlated with both an extended time to progression and survival (P < .0001).

48 ostic value was assessed by correlation with time to progression and survival time.

49 Median time to progression and survival were 7.2 and 16.9 month

50 Median time to progression and survival were 9.3 and 14.1 month

51 condary end points included an estimation of time to progression and survival.

52 Radioembolization resulted in longer time-to-progression and less toxicity than chemoemboliza

53 Median times to progression and survival were 5.8 and 19.1 mont

54 -free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to progression, and duration of response were also

55 The response rate, time to progression, and median survival were slightly s

56 l benefit but also improved quality of life, time to progression, and overall survival compared with

57 FOLFOX4 led to superior RR, time to progression, and overall survival compared with

58 nt end points of metastasis prevention, SRE, time to progression, and overall survival in the context

59 Safety, clinical response, time to progression, and overall survival were assessed.

60 Clinical and radiologic outcome, time to progression, and overall survival were evaluated

61 ciated with CR and overall remission, longer time to progression, and overall survival.

62 e of efficacy including tumor response rate, time to progression, and overall survival.

63 These agents improve response rates, time to progression, and overall survival.

64 er high-dose dexamethasone in response rate, time to progression, and survival in patients with myelo

65 Median time to response, time to progression, and survival time were 2.0, 4.3 and

66 dictive marker for response, stable disease, time to progression, and survival.

67 status, tumor size, surgical margin status, time to progression, and time to death.

68 uperior clinical efficacy (overall survival, time-to-progression, and prostate-specific antigen decli

69 Time to progression as determined by independent review.

70 trials that use progression-free survival or time to progression as their primary end point, because

71 9c* was an independent prognostic factor for time to progression as well as survival after surgical c

72 We assessed frequency of and time to progression, as well as proportional increase of

73 The primary end point was time to progression, based on an evaluation by independe

74 ate the association between relative CBV and time to progression by using Kaplan-Meier curves.

75 assifications were independent predictors of time to progression compared to known clinical prognosti

76 We performed this study to determine if time to progression could be used as an end point for su

77 The median time to progression/discontinuation was 6.6 months in pa

78 d points of progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, duration of response, safety, and t

79 Randomized phase II trials with a time-to-progression endpoint are proposed as pivotal for

80 Using time to progression following prostatectomy as the relev

81 ls of HER2 homodimers correlated with longer time to progression following trastuzumab therapy in a c

82 Median time to progression for all 34 eligible patients enrolle

83 Median time to progression for all indolent NHL patients was 17

84 The median time to progression for all patients was 2.3 months (95%

85 Median time to progression for all patients was 51.2 months and

86 Median time to progression for cisplatin/pemetrexed was 4.9 mon

87 Median time to progression for responders was 38 months.

88 The median time to progression for the 59 patients who progressed w

89 here was no significant difference in median time to progression for the patients with low versus hig

90 nts, as well as time to first metastasis and time to progression for trials in the nonmetastatic CRPC

91 ere was no difference in overall survival or time to progression; for prinomastat versus placebo pati

92 agnetic resonance imaging to predict shorter time-to-progression from mild cognitive impairment to Al

93 myeloma patients showed significantly longer time to progression, higher response rate, and improved

94 deprivation (CAD) have superior survival and time to progression if lower castrate levels of testoste

95 roni-corrected P = .016), as well as shorter time to progression in bortezomib-treated patients (P =

96 Median time to progression in BPI-SF pain at its worst was 5.7

97 Kaplan-Meier estimates of median time to progression in days indicated that patients with

98 ion MR imaging can be used to predict median time to progression in patients with gliomas, independen

99 rrations in terms of frequency and impact on time to progression in patients with smoldering multiple

100 une-related genes was correlated with longer time to progression in recurrent ependymoma.

101 The hazard ratio for time to progression in responders compared with nonrespo

102 Median time to progression in the 63 patients was 8.7 months.

103 ion-free survival was 9.3 months, and median time to progression in the liver was 12.3 months.

104 Median time to progression in the prior bevacizumab and bevaciz

105 The time to progression in these patients ranged from 38 to

106 ped achieved a 2-fold to 10-fold increase in time to progression in tumor models.

107 The median time-to-progression in all patients was 6.5 months (95%

108 Median times to progression in the bortezomib and dexamethasone

109 Median time to progression is 13.5 months.

110 (4;14) identifies a subset of patients whose time to progression is only 8.2 months.

111 Patients with short time-to-progression (<2 years) had either low levels of

112 Patients receiving len/dex had longer time to progression (median, 27.4 vs 17.2 months; P = .0

113 Patients with sCR displayed slightly longer time to progression (median, 62 vs 53 months, respective

114 Secondary end points included time to progression, median progression-free survival (P

115 H and TCH in terms of the primary end point, time to progression (medians of 11.1 and 10.4 months, re

116 The interim analysis of time to progression met specified criteria for early rep

117 Administered dose, response rate, time-to-progression (modified Response Evaluation Criter

118 Response rate, time to progression, MS, and 1-year OS rates for CG and

119 ase control-progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate, and durati

120 e uniformity was an independent predictor of time to progression (odds ratio, 4.02; 95% confidence in

121 Eighty-one (32%) of 250 patients had a time to progression of > or = 1 year (termed durable res

122 cluded recurrent FL and prior rituximab with time to progression of >/= 6 months from last dose.

123 ere EDSS score progression (masked assessor, time to progression of >/=1 point from a baseline score

124 43 have progressed to myeloma, with a median time to progression of 1.8 years.

125 idence interval [CI], 2%-30%), with a median time to progression of 12 weeks (interquartile range [IQ

126 ients ranged from 38 to 420 days with a mean time to progression of 136 days.

127 ith relative CBV more than 1.75 had a median time to progression of 245 days +/- 62.

128 -negative SBP patients evolved to MM (median time to progression of 26 months vs not reached; hazard

129 with a relative CBV of more than 1.75 had a time to progression of 265 days.

130 relative CBV of less than 1.75 had a median time to progression of 3585 days, whereas patients with

131 tment cycles in 108 patients showed a 5-year time to progression of 41.7% (95% CI 22.2-60.1) in patie

132 ith relative CBV less than 1.75 had a median time to progression of 4620 days +/- 433 (standard devia

133 sing overall response rate of 36% and median time to progression of 8.5 (6.0, 38.7) mo and overall su

134 ly of the prognostic index, or could predict time to progression of KS.

135 Median time to progression of mean pain intensity was longer in

136 , 95% CI 0.67-1.00; p=0.0490), as was median time to progression of pain interference with daily acti

137 Time to progression of PDR and VH were calculated with C

138 e objective clinical response, toxicity, and time to progression of treatment with 9-Nitro-Camptothec

139 Median time to progression of worst pain was also longer with a

140 er genes, SLCO2B1 and SLCO1B3, may determine time to progression on ADT.

141 domisation, stratified by geographic region, time to progression on first-line therapy, and disease m

142 Patients were stratified by ancestry, time to progression on penultimate platinum, and respons

143 ractive voice response system, stratified by time to progression on penultimate platinum-based regime

144 s were significantly associated with shorter time to progression or PeSCCA-specific survival.

145 PET did not improve the time to progression or survival in patients with extensi

146 oint was to demonstrate a 50% improvement in time to progression over historical values.

147 esponse, with secondary end points including time to progression, overall survival, and correlation o

148 bicin monotherapy resulted in greater median time to progression, overall survival, and progression-f

149 Secondary end points included time to progression, overall survival, and safety.

150 ncluded objective response in non-CNS sites, time to progression, overall survival, and toxicity.

151 ral randomised trials have reported improved time-to-progression, overall survival, or both in metast

152 ic anticoagulation (overall survival P = .7, time to progression P = .1).

153 icantly affect overall survival (P = .90) or time to progression (P = .34).

154 d IL-12p70 levels positively correlated with time to progression (P = 0.019, log-rank), as did T-cyto

155 only, hippocampal atrophy predicted shorter time-to-progression (P < 0.001) while Abeta load did not

156 The regimen maintains a long time to progression, preserving vision while minimizing

157 Median time to progression (primary end point) was significantl

158 objectives included safety and tolerability, time to progression, progression-free survival, and over

159 With a median follow-up of 137 weeks, time to progression, progression-free survival, and over

160 improved the rate of complete remission, and time to progression, progression-free survival, and over

161 The secondary end points were time to progression, progression-free survival, conversi

162 ter B-cell-like DLBCL (log-rank P < .001 for time to progression, progression-free survival, disease-

163 umors), median survival increased by 36% and time to progression/progression-free survival increased

164 ated that lenalidomide consolidation extends time to progression requiring salvage therapy.

165 riginal protocol but instead was added after time-to-progression results were analyzed, and that not

166 Secondary end points were time to progression, safety, and tolerability.

167 CBV (>1.75) have a significantly more rapid time to progression than do patients who have gliomas wi

168 s on CT at 2 months had significantly longer time to progression than those who did not respond (P =

169 time of KS diagnosis did not have a shorter time to progression than those who were antiretroviral n

170 rtezomib had higher response rates, a longer time to progression (the primary end point), and a longe

171 The primary endpoint was time to progression (time of progressive disease or deat

172 tments for patients with MDS, increasing the time to progression to acute myelogenous leukemia and im

173 The median time to progression to ESRF from onset of AA amyloidosis

174 The primary end point was time to progression to symptomatic disease.

175 The primary outcome was time-to-progression to Alzheimer's dementia.

176 Secondary end points were time to progression, toxicity, and quality of life.

177 e-free survival as the primary end point and time to progression, toxicity, disease-specific survival

178 tus was an independent prognostic factor for time to progression (TTP) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; P = .

179 Mean time to progression (TTP) and duration of response (DR)

180 Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (O

181 ponse to HDT-ASCT leads to an improvement in time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS).

182 aseline to first follow-up was compared with time to progression (TTP) by using a Cox proportional ha

183 We hypothesize time to progression (TTP) could be increased by integrat

184 were significantly (P < .01) associated with time to progression (TTP) during ADT, remaining so in mu

185 Median time to progression (TTP) for all patients was 2.3 month

186 The median time to progression (TTP) from ASCT of patients achievin

187 The primary end point was time to progression (TTP) from randomization.

188 Time to progression (TTP) increased from 4.5 months with

189 of 50 patients have progressed with a median time to progression (TTP) of 18 months.

190 Three SNPs in SLCO2B1 were associated with time to progression (TTP) on ADT (P < .05).

191 ly 40% for patients with neither; the median time to progression (TTP) was 10.47 versus 3.46 years (P

192 The median time to progression (TTP) was 11.3 months, and the media

193 Median time to progression (TTP) was 18.4 and median survival (

194 Investigator-assessed median time to progression (TTP) was 4.2 months, and median ove

195 nfirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10

196 Time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer for f

197 Time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer with

198 Time to progression (TTP) was the primary efficacy end p

199 Response rate and time to progression (TTP) were determined using World He

200 To compare time to progression (TTP) with a steroidal aromatase inh

201 aboratory toxicity levels, imaging response, time to progression (TTP), 90-day mortality, and surviva

202 e plus partial response plus stable disease) time to progression (TTP), and KIT genotyping.

203 objective of determining the response rate, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS) amo

204 OX expression with time to metastasis (TTM), time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS).

205 o higher overall response rate (ORR), longer time to progression (TTP), and progression-free survival

206 -free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), and safety were assessed.

207 dary end points were time to response (TTR), time to progression (TTP), duration of response (DOR), a

208 estingly, there was a striking difference in time to progression (TTP), duration of response, and ove

209 The primary outcome was time to progression (TTP), evaluated by intention-to-tre

210 Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response (OR), and

211 ) was the primary end point; others included time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and to

212 esponse rate (RR); secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), overall survival, and toxicit

213 as overall survival; secondary outcomes were time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PF

214 survival (OS) and secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), response rate (RR), progressi

215 Secondary and tertiary end points included time to progression (TTP), response rate, and overall su

216 Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), response rate, and overall su

217 d points include radiographic response rate, time to progression (TTP), toxicity, and symptom improve

218 y end points included overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), VEGF levels, and molecular st

219 and CHL patients (75% vs 73%; P = .610), the time to progression (TTP), which also includes the devel

220 The primary end point was time to progression (TTP).

221 rmine response rates (size and necrosis) and time to progression (TTP).

222 The primary end point was time to progression (TTP).

223 early changes as a predictor of response and time to progression (TTP).

224 bo were assessed for survival, response, and time to progression (TTP).

225 The primary end point was time to progression (TTP).

226 5% CI, 1.15 to 1.73; P = .03) and the median time to progression (TTP, 5.7 months v 3.6 months; HR, 1

227 control rate (DCR, 56.5% v 33.3%; P = .04), time to progression (TTP, 9.05 v 2.7 months; P = .02), a

228 ponse rates (RR; 28% v 15.5%; P = .0009) and time to progression (TTP; 6.2 v 4.4 months; P = .0009) w

229 all and complete response rates (P < .0001), time to progression (TTP; P < .0001), response duration

230 /mL at enrollment had a significantly longer time to progression (TTP; P = .0004).

231 this patient population and to determine the time-to-progression (TTP) and time-to-subsequent-chemoth

232 In this report, we update survival (OS) and time-to-progression (TTP) data for the Intergroup trial

233 fter a median follow-up of 66 months, median time-to-progression (TTP) was 55 months and median progr

234 e correlated with the radiographic response, time-to-progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS).

235 e response rate, duration of response (DOR), time-to-progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and sa

236 tion of AFP response to radiologic response, time-to-progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PF

237 Primary end point was time-to-progression (TTP).

238 s the primary endpoint, efficacy of Y90RE on time-to-progression (TTP).

239 included progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-progression (TTP).

240 hazard ratio for the independently assessed time to progression was 0.49 (95% confidence interval, 0

241 The 2-year time to progression was 0.59, and for patients who compl

242 Median time to progression was 1.0 year (95% confidence interva

243 At the median follow-up of 2.5 years, median time to progression was 1.1 year for lenalidomide alone

244 Median time to progression was 1.5 months in arm A and 4.0 mont

245 The median time to progression was 10 months and the 2-year surviva

246 The median time to progression was 11.1 months in the lenalidomide

247 a median follow-up of 64 months, the median time to progression was 14.5 months.

248 The median time to progression was 152 days (mean, 380.1 days, 95%

249 The median time to progression was 16.4 months (95% CI, 11.4 to 21.

250 The median time to progression was 165 days, and the median overall

251 After median follow-up of 29 months, median time to progression was 17.3 months.

252 The median time to progression was 18.3 months, and the median over

253 Median time to progression was 2.0 months; overall survival tim

254 Median time to progression was 2.07 years (95% CI 1.96-2.17), g

255 Median time to progression was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.2 m

256 The median time to progression was 20 months, significantly longer

257 Median time to progression was 24 months (95% CI, 18 to 39 mont

258 Median time to progression was 3 months, and median survival ti

259 Median time to progression was 3.3 months.

260 Median time to progression was 3.9 months and median survival w

261 The median time to progression was 4.4 months (95% CI, 0.8 to 32.6+

262 Median time to progression was 4.5 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 8.3 m

263 The mean time to progression was 4.6 times longer for lesions wit

264 The median time to progression was 46 months in the lenalidomide gr

265 The median time to progression was 47 weeks (95% CI 34-not reached)

266 of 40 patients; 95% CI, 16% to 44%), median time to progression was 5 months (95% CI, 3 to 8 months)

267 a median follow-up of 19 months, the median time to progression was 5 months, median survival was 11

268 Median time to progression was 5 years.

269 Median time to progression was 5.9 months for DCF and 5.0 month

270 Median time to progression was 5.9 months.

271 The overall median time to progression was 52 d (95% confidence interval, 4

272 The median time to progression was 57.3 months (95% CI 44.2-73.3) f

273 events for progression-free survival, median time to progression was 6.4 months in the sorafenib-doxo

274 The median time to progression was 6.7 months, and overall median s

275 8.5% (two partial, two complete), and median time to progression was 7.3 months.

276 Median time to progression was 7.7 months (in all patients).

277 Median time to progression was 8 weeks.

278 th a median follow-up of 12.2 months, median time to progression was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 9.9 m

279 Median time to progression was 8.3 months (range, 2.1 to 63+) a

280 was 13.1 months and not reached, and median time to progression was 8.3 months and not reached, resp

281 The median time to progression was 8.4 months in the combination-th

282 Median time to progression was 80 months.

283 Median time to progression was 9.46 months.

284 Median time to progression was 9.9, 8.0, and 8.3 weeks for chor

285 rameters and standard criteria with measured time to progression was assessed by using Kaplan-Meier a

286 Median time to progression was increased from 6.5 months for bo

287 median of 16.4 months follow-up, the median time to progression was not reached for patients in the

288 ling in RAS-induced tumorigenesis, decreased time to progression was observed for some KRAS-mutant tu

289 HCC, no radiographic responses were seen and time to progression was short, which suggests minimal si

290 n follow-up of 31 months (IQR 19-42), median time to progression was significantly longer in the salv

291 a median follow-up of 40 months, the median time to progression was significantly longer in the trea

292 The median time to progression was similar between the two treatmen

293 Time to progression was slightly but statistically longe

294 Although time-to-progression was longer following radioembolizati

295 Median survival time and time to progression were 11.4 and 4.4 months, respective

296 The incidence and the time-to-progression were compared between total and patt

297 Time to progression with OFF (2.9 months; 95% CI, 2.4 to

298 such patterns differentiated short from long time-to-progression with 90% (27/30) sensitivity and 80%

299 pal atrophy and Abeta load predicted shorter time-to-progression with comparable power (hazard ratio

300 The primary comparison was time to progression, with secondary end points of respon