ライフサイエンスコーパス: DTIC

1 DTIC treatment, which did not increase FasR expression,

2 The CE ratio's 95% CI ranged from -$65,180 (DTIC is more effective) to $18, 670 per year of life gai

3 tients received 1.8 mg/kg BV and 375 mg/m(2) DTIC for up to 12 cycles, and 20 more patients received

4 vinblastine 1.6 mg/m2 daily for 4 days; and DTIC 800 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) day 1 with IL-2 9 x

5 safety and promising durable efficacy of BV-DTIC and BV-nivolumab combinations as frontline treatmen

6 Ten patients (45%) with BV-DTIC and 16 patients (76%) with BV-nivolumab experienced

7 Of the 22 patients treated with BV-DTIC, 95% achieved objective response, and 64% achieved

8 nd neutropenia (9%) were most common with BV-DTIC, and increased lipase (24%), motor PN (19%), and se

9 malignant melanoma were treated with CDDP + DTIC + BCNU (CDB) with or without TAM.

10 The response rate of crossover DTIC treatment was 8.2%, with a median survival of 11.9

11 aline (NS) on days 1 to 3 of a 3-week cycle; DTIC 220 mg/m(2) IV for 1 hour in 500 mL of dextrose and

12 gents 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and dacarbazine (DTIC) sensitize melanoma cells to lysis of G209 peptide-

13 mbination of carmustine (BCNU), dacarbazine (DTIC), cisplatin (DDP), and tamoxifen (Tam) has been rep

14 nt regimen of cisplatin (CDDP), dacarbazine (DTIC), and carmustine (BCNU) significantly increased the

15 nary efficacy of unesbulin plus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with advanced leiomyosarcoma (LMS).

16 s previously reported), BV plus dacarbazine (DTIC), and BV plus bendamustine.

17 Patients crossed over to the dacarbazine (DTIC) treatment after disease progression following firs

18 d control patients treated with dacarbazine (DTIC), median overall survival of 15.0 versus 8.3 months

19 ab vedotin (BV; 1.8 mg/kg) with dacarbazine (DTIC; 375 mg/m2) (part B) or nivolumab (part D; 3 mg/kg)

20 cal costs were included and increased 50% if DTIC's efficacy was unchanged if given as a single daily

21 for 5 days every 28 days or intravenous (IV) DTIC at a starting dosage of 250 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days ev

22 temozolomide than after IV administration of DTIC.

23 omide demonstrates efficacy equal to that of DTIC and is an oral alternative for patients with advanc

24 s in the range reported for single agents or DTIC plus DDP, and the addition of BCNU and Tam appears

25 Treatment with 5-FU or DTIC sensitized melanoma cells to lysis of G209-specific

26 Most importantly, 5-FU- or DTIC-treated melanoma cells also became sensitive to low

27 The mean increase in survival of TEM over DTIC was 1.1 months.

28 For elderly patients with HL, BV plus DTIC may be a frontline option based on tolerability and

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

30 Unesbulin 300 mg twice per week plus DTIC 1,000 mg/m(2) once every 21 days was identified as

31 costs per patient were greater with TEM than DTIC ($6,902 v $3,697, respectively).

32 and costs, direct nonmedical costs, and the DTIC schedule.

33 omide-treated group (1.9 months) than in the DTIC-treated group (1.5 months) (P =.012; hazards ratio,

34 reated with BCNU 150 mg/m2/d, every 6 weeks, DTIC 220 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 3 every 3 weeks, DDP 25 mg

35 in orally twice per week in combination with DTIC 1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) once every 21 days

36 ed orally twice per week in combination with DTIC 1,000 mg/m(2) IV once every 21 days was identified

37 00 mg up to 400 mg) were in combination with DTIC.

38 the base-case efficacy of TEM compared with DTIC was not statistically significant, its associated i

39 lomide and 6.4 months for those treated with DTIC (hazards ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI],

40 dian survival times of patients treated with DTIC and TEM were 6.4 and 7.7 months, respectively (HR =