ライフサイエンスコーパス: time to treatment failure

1 end points included tumor response rates and time to treatment failure.

2 The primary end point was time to treatment failure.

3 There were no significant differences in time to treatment failure.

4 sed adjustment of inhaled corticosteroids in time to treatment failure.

5 AIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was time to treatment failure.

6 The primary outcome was the time to treatment failure.

7 The primary efficacy outcome was time to treatment failure.

8 vel of PDGF-BB was inversely correlated with time to treatment failure.

9 t 6 months), time to clinical remission, and time to treatment failure.

10 The primary end point of this trial was time to treatment failure.

11 predicts lower response rates and a shorter time to treatment failure.

12 reatment history alone was not predictive of time to treatment failure.

13 igher objective response rate (12% v 3%) and time to treatment failure (10 weeks v 8 weeks) for vinor

14 However, DES produced significantly longer time to treatment failure (26.4 v 9.7 months, P = .016)

15 The median time to treatment failure (9 months) and median survival

16 The primary efficacy endpoint was time to treatment failure, a multicomponent endpoint enc

17 sceptibility was an independent predictor of time to treatment failure (adjusted hazards ratio [HR],

18 Time to treatment failure analysis showed that 69% of pa

19 more frequent responses and a delay in both time to treatment failure and disease progression compar

20 Although there was a delay in time to treatment failure and disease progression in fav

21 Time to treatment failure and overall survival were asce

22 Results The 8-year time to treatment failure and progression-free survival

23 Predictive variables for time to treatment failure and survival were visceral dis

24 TTP, time to treatment failure, and median survival (17.2 mon

25 continuous partial remission for 2+ years), time to treatment failure, and overall survival were ass

26 Response rates, time to treatment failure, and overall survival were sim

27 overall survival, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, and safety.

28 re response rate, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, and safety.

29 complete response rates, response durations, time to treatment failure, and survival were the same in

30 igible patients were evaluated for response, time to treatment failure, and survival.

31 Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 1-year remission,

32 Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 12-months remissi

33 free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival.

34 cost of resistance, and, in those cases, the time to treatment failure can be more than doubled.

35 However, the trend of the time to treatment failure curve does not indicate that c

36 The primary end point was the time to treatment failure, defined according to a multic

37 The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, defined as a lack of predniso

38 The primary outcome was the time to treatment failure, defined as death; liver trans

39 Time to treatment failure did not differ between groups

40 Time to treatment failure (disease progression, disease

41 ation compared with ADT resulted in a longer time to treatment failure during the 9-month follow-up p

42 There were also no differences in time to treatment failure for patients with early-stage

43 At a median follow-up of 4 years, time-to-treatment failure has not been reached and overa

44 prine with respect to the primary end point, time to treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confi

45 res) vs. 9% (low scores), P = 0.024], longer time-to-treatment failure [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.52; 95%

46 l survival, time to progressive disease, and time to treatment failure) in bladder cancer.

47 For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was significantly

48 ian, 4.5 v 9.2 months; HR, 1.78; P = .0001), time to treatment failure (median, 3.5 v 9.0 months; HR,

49 o [HR] 0.73 [95% CI 0.57-0.95], p=0.017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13.7 months [95% CI 11

50 d points included progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, objective response, and toxic

51 The primary efficacy end point was the time to treatment failure occurring at or after week 6.

52 Time to treatment failure of CRs compared with PRs was s

53 ards regression model, the predictors of the time to treatment failure or death were a low hematocrit

54 tion between receptor discordance and either time to treatment failure or overall survival.

55 The primary outcome was time-to-treatment failure or death for IHHD patients com

56 exception of toxicity, there is no response, time to treatment failure, or survival benefit for any o

57 ective tumor response, duration of response, time to treatment failure, or survival between the 13 pa

58 bamazepine, the standard drug treatment, for time to treatment failure outcomes and is therefore a co

59 with regard to response rate, survival, and time to treatment failure over single-agent cisplatin in

60 Outcomes were time to treatment failure overall, because of inadequate

61 best overall response, duration of response, time to treatment failure, overall survival, and safety.

62 high levels of alkyltransferase had shorter time to treatment failure (P = 0.05) and death (P = 0.00

63 tcomes: toxicity, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, quality of life, and the pred

64 significant difference between the groups in time to treatment failure (relative risk of treatment fa

65 d for survival, time to disease progression, time to treatment failure, response, and quality-of-life

66 ditional end points included tumor response, time to treatment failure, survival, and quality of life

67 low-up of 34 months showed a superior 3-year time to treatment failure, the primary study end point,

68 l AP levels, no VM, and minimal fatigue; for time to treatment failure, they were low/normal AP level

69 ne without treatment change) at 48 weeks and time to treatment failure through 48 weeks (intention-to

70 Currently, prediction of time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS

71 ts to detect a 50% improvement in the median time to treatment failure (TTF) compared with that repor

72 Median time to treatment failure (TTF) is 5.8, 6.0, and 8.0 mon

73 ta collection was not a trial objective, but time to treatment failure (TTF) was recorded in the firs

74 Time to treatment failure (TTF) was slightly longer for

75 erall survival (OS), response incidence, and time to treatment failure (TTF) were examined by race.

76 Response to tamoxifen and time to treatment failure (TTF) were not significantly a

77 to progression (TTP; primary end point) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were significantly longe

78 response rate (ORR), response duration (RD), time to treatment failure (TTF), clinical benefit rate (

79 Time to treatment failure (TTF), the primary parameter o

80 The primary end point-time to treatment failure (TTF), which included patients

81 these therapies on overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF).

82 PI with respect to overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF).

83 The principal end point of the study was time to treatment failure (TTF).

84 ve response (OR), overall survival (OS), and time to treatment failure (TTF).

85 Time to treatment failure (TTF; defined as discontinuati

86 P; median, 12.2 v 8.5 months; P =.0019), and time to treatment failure (TTF; median, 11.6 v 6.2 month

87 herapy in the treatment of AGC with a better time-to treatment failure (TTF) compared to ECX, ECX arm

88 The primary criterion was time-to-treatment failure (TTF) of the first-line therap

89 including response rates and their duration; time-to-treatment failure (TTF) rates; retreatment resul

90 For time to treatment failure, valproate was significantly b

91 The median time to treatment failure was 115 days for DaunoXome and

92 Median time to treatment failure was 16.7 months in patients al

93 Time to treatment failure was 17.4 months.

94 Median time to treatment failure was 2 months.

95 The median time to treatment failure was 24 weeks in the adalimumab

96 Median time to treatment failure was 27 months in patients rece

97 follow-up of 4.5 years, the estimated median time to treatment failure was 3.9 years for patients rec

98 The 40th percentile for time to treatment failure was 4.8 months in the placebo

99 The median time to treatment failure was 5.5 months.

100 Median time to treatment failure was 5.6 months; 38% of patient

101 val was 7.1, 4.9, and 6.8 months; and median time to treatment failure was 5.6, 4.3, and 6.7 months f

102 For responding patients, the median time to treatment failure was 7 months, with a median fo

103 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 15.0 months), median time to treatment failure was 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.2 to

104 tion of response was 11.2 months, the median time to treatment failure was 8.1 months, and the median

105 Median time to treatment failure was 8.4 weeks for NOL and 9.1

106 The median time to treatment failure was 93.2 months (range, 3 to 9

107 Time to treatment failure was comparable in both treatme

108 Although time to treatment failure was longer in patients on gemc

109 Time to treatment failure was longer with bevacizumab th

110 Time to treatment failure was significantly improved in

111 Although median time to treatment failure was significantly longer in pa

112 Median time to treatment failure was significantly longer in th

113 sults were concordant with overall survival; time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in b

114 Time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in t

115 Time to treatment failure was similar for both groups, a

116 For time to treatment failure, we identified several signifi

117 icant factors in the multivariable model for time to treatment failure were treatment history (antiep

118 4.3 and 4.7 months (log-rank P =.72), median times to treatment failure were 4.1 and 3.1 months (P =.

119 Median times to treatment failure were also similar at 5, 4, an

120 The primary efficacy end point was the time to treatment failure, which was defined as death, e