ライフサイエンスコーパス: Karnofsky performance status

1 known group differences (ie, lower vs higher Karnofsky performance status).

2 astases, duration of first-line therapy, and Karnofsky performance status.

3 ervous system, pulmonary manifestations, and Karnofsky performance status.

4 ain intensity, analgesic consumption, and/or Karnofsky performance status.

5 blished prognostic factors including age and Karnofsky performance status.

6 2]; 179 [52%] male; mean Australian-modified Karnofsky performance status 49 [SD 16.6; range 20-90]).

7 th asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status 50 or Karnofsky Performance

8 firmed and radiographically measurable GCTB, Karnofsky performance status 50% or higher (Eastern Coop

9 7.0 cm), private insurance (47% vs 52%), and Karnofsky performance status (60 vs 70) (P < .001 for al

10 le IIIA/IIIB histologically confirmed NSCLC, Karnofsky performance status 70 to 100, and 6-month pred

11 r prevalence of impaired performance status (Karnofsky performance status 70% to 80%) in the combinat

12 Median age was 57, and median Karnofsky performance status 80.

13 evaluable: 53% women, median age 55, median Karnofsky Performance Status 85.

14 lows: median age 59 years (range, 25 to 75); Karnofsky performance status 90% (70% to 100%); male:fem

15 ikely if they had a good performance status (Karnofsky Performance Status 90-100: aOR, 0.29; 95% CI,

16 = 61; female, n = 24; median age, 58 years; Karnofsky performance status, 90%; GEJ, n = 28; gastric,

17 There was no association between Karnofsky Performance Status and chemotherapy toxicity (

18 Karnofsky Performance Status and European Organization f

19 MSTs for cases matched by stage, Karnofsky performance status, and age were: RT-010, 20.6

20 misation was stratified by baseline albumin, Karnofsky performance status, and ethnic origin.

21 (analgesic consumption and pain intensity), Karnofsky performance status, and weight.

22 vity using independent t tests stratified by Karnofsky performance status; and responsiveness to chan

23 Among survivors, the median Karnofsky performance status at last follow-up was 85%.

24 The Karnofsky Performance Status before transplantation was

25 patient age, a modified disease risk index, Karnofsky performance status, donor age, HLA match, sex

26 rkers together with clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and n

27 sisting of the same clinical variables (age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extent of resection, and n

28 iagnosed between 1985 and 2005: patient age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extracranial metastases, a

29 Solid-tumor patients with a Karnofsky performance status greater than 70 who had nor

30 Forty patients with measurable disease and a Karnofsky performance status > or = 60% were enrolled at

31 All had Karnofsky performance status > or = 60% with no prior hi

32 h prolonged survival included a pretreatment Karnofsky performance status > or = 70% and fewer than t

33 available, measurable or assessable disease, Karnofsky performance status > or = 70%, and acceptable

34 In univariate analysis, Karnofsky performance status > or = 90% and no prior his

35 ersus former/current (36% v 8%; P<.001), and Karnofsky performance status > or =80% versus < or =70%

36 lanced between groups: median age, 71 years; Karnofsky performance status >/= 90%, 77.3%; and viscera

37 nths after radiation and temozolomide (TMZ), Karnofsky performance status >=70, and no imaging findin

38 Fifty patients with newly diagnosed GBM (Karnofsky performance status >or= 60) were enrolled onto

39 rbidity risks, the HCT-comorbidity index and Karnofsky performance status have proven to be the most

40 used as risk factors for short survival: low Karnofsky performance status, high lactate dehydrogenase

41 lung cancer harbouring a RET rearrangement, Karnofsky performance status higher than 70, and measura

42 After stratification for Karnofsky performance status, histology, and number of p

43 At the time of maximal response, Karnofsky performance status improved in 12 (44%) of 27

44 as evidenced by high functional status (mean Karnofsky Performance Status index: 82.2/100 where >/= 8

45 Eligible patients had Karnofsky performance status (KPS) > or = 60%, Cancer of

46 with newly diagnosed uMGMT glioblastoma and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) >=70 were randomly as

47 eloquent/critical brain regions (P = .021), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) < or = 80 (P = .030),

48 0.62), the use of chemotherapy (RR = 0.63), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) greater than 80 (RR =

49 Two factors had independent prognosis: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) less than 80% and vis

50 troesophageal junction adenocarcinoma with a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of > or = 70% and nea

51 ears (range, 42 to 79) and 31 patients had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of 100%.

52 ere more likely to have a stable or improved Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score at 6 months' fo

53 inuous analysis was carried out adjusting by Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score for: PD-L1 comb

54 Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was of borderline sig

55 on between functional status, as measured by Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and liver transplant

56 to account patient age, extent of resection, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), and treatment group

57 By univariate analysis, sex, age, race, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), exposure to erythrop

58 random element and stratification by centre, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), gender, status of br

59 The factors selected were age, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), hemoglobin (HGB), pr

60 Prospective study included impacts of Karnofsky performance status (KPS), quality of life (QOL

61 he contrary, it negatively correlates to the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS).

62 ication factors included age, resection, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS).

63 an easy-to-use prognostic model based on the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS).

64 itive worsening by one or more categories of Karnofsky performance status (KPS).

65 lactic acid dehydrogenase (LDH); histology; Karnofsky performance status (KPS); stage; B symptoms; r

66 nts from the national registry with measured Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS, 0%-100%) at listing,

67 odel (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, Karnofsky performance status [KPS] <80, and <1 year from

68 3, 98 patients (frail = age >/= 50 years and Karnofsky performance status [KPS] of 50% to 70%; elderl

69 plantation (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.61), Karnofsky performance status less than 90% (HR, 1.25; 95

70 rvival in the multivariate analysis were low Karnofsky performance status, low hemoglobin level, and

71 n survival identified age at least 57 years, Karnofsky performance status lower than 90%, platelet co

72 th either Karnofsky Performance Status 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic thera

73 either Karnofsky Performance Status <= 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic thera

74 ydrogenase > 1.5x upper limit of normal, and Karnofsky performance status < 80%).

75 ase more than 101 U/L (HR = 2.8; P = .0002), Karnofsky performance status </= 70 (HR = 2.3; P = .007)

76 th asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status <= 50 or Karnofsky Performa

77 rvival in the multivariate analysis were low Karnofsky performance status (<80%), high serum lactate

78 ologically documented recurrent glioma and a Karnofsky performance status of > or = 60% who were elig

79 biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer, a Karnofsky performance status of 50 or higher, increasing

80 Patients with Karnofsky performance status of 60% to 70%, creatinine c

81 e patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher.

82 IV non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher were eligi

83 etastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurabl

84 anced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher.

85 ell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and availab

86 cell carcinoma with clear cell histology, a Karnofsky Performance Status of 70% or more, and measura

87 rganization performance score of 0 to 1 or a Karnofsky performance status of 90 to 100.

88 Patients (35 to 76 years old) had a median Karnofsky performance status of 90%.

89 without any prior salvage therapy and with a Karnofsky performance status of at least 50 were eligibl

90 pleted graft for any indication and a Lansky/Karnofsky performance status of at least 70% were eligib

91 a tumour diameter of 70 mm or smaller, and a Karnofsky performance status of at least 70.

92 rgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, and a Karnofsky Performance Status of at least 70.

93 stage II-IV HIV-associated cHL (HIV-cHL), a Karnofsky performance status of more than 30%, a CD4(+)

94 progressed after docetaxel treatment with a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70% and who we

95 In the multivariate analysis, four factors: Karnofsky Performance Status (p = 0.000068), number of b

96 xcitation/inhibition ratio related to poorer Karnofsky Performance Status, particularly in codeleted

97 ancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and a Karnofsky performance status (PS) of 70% or greater.

98 Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients and Karnofsky Performance Status Rating Scale), and patient-

99 our studies; n = 257) stabilized or improved Karnofsky performance status (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.12 to

100 oup performance status score of less than 3 (Karnofsky Performance Status score >40) were registered

101 ptor-positive midgut neuroendocrine tumours (Karnofsky performance status score 60) and disease progr

102 patient and graft survival is 80%, and their Karnofsky performance status score increased by a mean o

103 with severe anemia, clinical depression, or Karnofsky performance status score less than 70 were exc

104 tivariate analysis, chemotherapy resistance, Karnofsky performance status score less than 80 at trans

105 mple of 65 adult oncology outpatients with a Karnofsky performance status score of >or= 50, an averag

106 of 50 or higher if 16 years or younger and a Karnofsky performance status score of 50 or higher if ol

107 solid tumour or lymphoma, and a Lansky Play/Karnofsky Performance status score of 50 or higher, rece

108 Of these patients, 231 (95.9%) had a Karnofsky performance status score of 70 or higher, and

109 ears, with normal organ function, a baseline Karnofsky Performance Status score of 70 or higher, who

110 assessment in neuro-oncology criteria, and a Karnofsky Performance Status score of 70 or more, underw

111 anced clear cell renal cell carcinoma, had a Karnofsky Performance Status score of 70% or higher, had

112 Other eligibility criteria were Karnofsky performance status score of at least 60% for p

113 Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and me

114 Inclusion criteria included a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70, measu

115 In addition, the Karnofsky performance status score was used to compare p

116 elated to survival after accounting for age, Karnofsky performance status score, histology, and time

117 We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a s

118 rent grade 2 IDH1/2-mutant diffuse glioma, a Karnofsky performance-status score of 80 or higher, at l

119 ified according to age, histologic findings, Karnofsky performance-status score, and presence or abse

120 Higher Karnofsky performance status scores (hazard ratio [HR],

121 CI: 0.12, 0.53; P < .001]), and postsurgical Karnofsky performance status scores were higher in patie

122 were analyzed as prognostic factors for OS: Karnofsky performance status, stage, sex, age, race, mar

123 After adjustment for age and Karnofsky performance status, the OS of vaccinated patie

124 standard clinical parameters (e.g., age and Karnofsky performance status), these model-defined param

125 riables for overall survival controlling for Karnofsky performance status, tumor stage, nodal stage,

126 The Karnofsky Performance Status was assessed objectively fo

127 n Treatment and Outcome Study (EUTOS) score, Karnofsky performance status, year of diagnosis, and exp