戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 (49 patients) or 75 mg/m(2) (55 patients) or best supportive care.
2 ndomly assigned and received atezolizumab or best supportive care.
3 rate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care.
4 d radiotherapy alone, temozolomide alone, or best supportive care.
5 antly improve overall survival compared with best supportive care.
6  199 assigned to rigosertib, 100 assigned to best supportive care.
7 eeks) or placebo; all patients also received best supportive care.
8 zantinib is not cost-effective compared with best supportive care.
9 y to patients previously only considered for best supportive care.
10 ne marrow fibrosis, or improve survival over best supportive care.
11 g per day) or placebo; all patients received best supportive care.
12 5 quality-adjusted life years) compared with best supportive care.
13 ebo (203 patients), both in conjunction with best supportive care.
14 appropriate need for systemic therapy versus best supportive care.
15 272) or placebo (n=138), in conjunction with best supportive care.
16 ther gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care.
17 trials comparing cytotoxic chemotherapy with best supportive care.
18 of $64,401 per life-year gained, compared to best supportive care.
19  $87,502 per life-year gained, compared with best supportive care.
20                        All patients received best supportive care.
21 al disease-modifying treatment compared with best supportive care.
22 nstead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care.
23              Durvalumab plus tremelimumab or best supportive care.
24 ce daily on days 1-21 in 28-day cycles, plus best supportive care.
25 nagement of secondary organ dysfunction, and best supportive care.
26 eiving nonsurgical therapy (10.6 months) and best supportive care (3.7 months, P < 0.001).
27 ee survival benefit with atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in pati
28 med to evaluate adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemo
29 antly prolonged overall survival relative to best supportive care alone as first-line maintenance the
30 1 fashion to durvalumab plus tremelimumab or best supportive care alone between August 10, 2016, and
31 ffect median and 1-year survival relative to best supportive care alone for NSCLC.
32 ab plus best supportive care was superior to best supportive care alone for patients with symptomatic
33 prophylaxis plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone for sinusoidal obstruction sy
34 mly assigned to the MesoPher group (n=88) or best supportive care alone group (n=88).
35 tide plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with SBS-IF.
36 's care should be transitioned to hospice or best supportive care alone is possible.Additional inform
37 ] for cetuximab plus best supportive care vs best supportive care alone of 0.55).
38 for whom toxicity or prognosis are concerns, best supportive care alone, RT alone (for MGMT promoter
39 for whom toxicity or prognosis are concerns, best supportive care alone, RT alone (for MGMT promoter
40 oPher treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone.
41 icant survival benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care and gemcitabine combinations over g
42 s of $177,496 for cabozantinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness
43 rogressed through multiple lines of therapy, best supportive care, and death.
44 n (curative therapy, palliative therapy, and best supportive care) between patients with NAFLD-relate
45                    Y-90 TARE was compared to best supportive care (BSC) (n = 4), an association of fo
46 ival (DFS) with adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care (BSC) following platinum-based chem
47  parallel groups to receive either CPAP with best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone for 12 months.
48 EG20, 36.8 mg/m2, weekly intramuscular) plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone.
49 JAVELIN Bladder 100; NCT02603432 ), avelumab/best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overa
50 C trial comparing panitumumab monotherapy to best supportive care (BSC).
51 d persons receiving RDV with those receiving best supportive care (BSC).
52    Whether 2(nd)-line-chemotherapy (2LCTX) + best-supportive-care (BSC) benefits patients with advanc
53        On a per-patient level, compared with best supportive care, CHOP was estimated to avert a mean
54 ectiveness of treatment in Malawi, comparing best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP in patients with D
55 or the treatment of patients with DLBCL with best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP, running the model
56 ), and life years (LYs)] of teduglutide plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care
57 (four equal doses [6.25 mg/kg per dose]) and best supportive care (determined by individual instituti
58      Other options include systemic therapy, best supportive care, enrollment onto a clinical trial,
59 xamined were as follows: chemotherapy versus best supportive care; fluorouracil (FU) versus FU combin
60 to three referral centers who were receiving best supportive care following permanent discontinuation
61 tudy comparing HLA-identical sibling HSCT to best supportive care for children with less severe SCD.
62 ents, docetaxel for vulnerable patients, and best supportive care for frail patients).
63 2) stratified by IPSS risk was compared with best supportive care for patients with nonanemic low/int
64 sertib group and 5.9 months (4.1-9.3) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.
65 nths (14.3-21.9; 59 [67%] of 88 died) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 1.10 [95% CI 0.
66 ide prophylaxis group and 73% (62-80) in the best supportive care group (HR 1.27 [95% CI 0.84-1.93];
67 the defibrotide prophylaxis group (n=190) or best supportive care group (n=182; ITT population).
68 morrhage) and one (3%) of 31 patients in the best supportive care group (sinusoidal obstruction syndr
69 tib group and 30 (33%) of 91 patients in the best supportive care group died due to adverse events an
70 rotide prophylaxis group and two [1%] in the best supportive care group) and febrile neutropaenia (gr
71  the MesoPher group vs two [2%] of 88 in the best supportive care group), dyspnoea (none vs two [2%])
72 ib group vs seven [8%] of 91 patients in the best supportive care group), thrombocytopenia (35 [19%]
73 hylaxis group) or best supportive care only (best supportive care group).
74 tide prophylaxis group and three [2%] in the best supportive care group).
75 is group and 61 (35%) of 174 patients in the best supportive care group.
76 rotide prophylaxis group and 52 [30%] in the best supportive care group; grade 4, no patients in the
77 is group and 56 [32%] of 174 patients in the best supportive care group; grade 4, two [1%] in the def
78  at a similar rate in both the docetaxel and best supportive care groups.
79  in survival with chemotherapy compared with best supportive care has not been well described.
80                                    The term 'best supportive care' has been used since 1988 to descri
81 Chemotherapy improved survival compared with best supportive care (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI,
82 l benefit them and/or active surveillance or best supportive care if it will not.
83 al regorafenib 160 mg daily or placebo, plus best supportive care in both groups, for the first 3 wee
84     The panel identified four key domains of best supportive care in clinical trials: multidisciplina
85 improved disease-free survival compared with best supportive care in patients in the stage II-IIIA po
86 vorin, and irinotecan) in study 20050181, or best supportive care in study 20020408 with or without p
87 -intensity HCT to hypomethylating therapy or best supportive care in subjects 50-75 years of age with
88 t was $56,621 for cabozantinib and $2064 for best supportive care in the German model resulting in in
89 l survival benefit compared with placebo and best supportive care in the National Cancer Institute of
90 costs and effectiveness of cabozantinib with best supportive care in the second-line treatment of adv
91 ry 8 weeks (four intravenous infusions, plus best supportive care including octreotide long-acting re
92 edian survival of PS 2 patients treated with best supportive care is 2-3 months, chemotherapy regimen
93 n at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mo
94                                              Best supportive care is poorly defined in clinical trial
95 ng platinum-treated patients to docetaxel or best supportive care is underway.
96                                             'Best supportive care' is an unhelpful and misleading ter
97 atment options, and poor performance status, best supportive care may be appropriate.
98 for randomisation to atezolizumab (n=507) or best supportive care (n=498); 495 in each group received
99 g every 21 days; for 16 cycles or 1 year) or best supportive care (observation and regular scans for
100             Treatment approaches ranged from best supportive care only (38.2%) to systemic glucocorti
101 uidelines; defibrotide prophylaxis group) or best supportive care only (best supportive care group).
102 oglobulins (IVIG), cyclosporine A (CSA), and best supportive care only (BSCO) affected the systemic i
103 portive care with that of patients receiving best supportive care only in patients with myelodysplast
104 elioid vs other), to MesoPher treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone.
105 zed trials of anti-EGFR-based therapy versus best supportive care or cytotoxic chemotherapy, no signi
106  received chemotherapy only; and 5% received best supportive care or placebo.
107 oorer performance status more often received best supportive care (P < 0.001).
108 emotherapy (P<0.0001) and fewer treated with best supportive care (P=0.0004), mirroring improvements
109 n was longer for docetaxel patients than for best supportive care patients (10.6 v 6.7 weeks, respect
110 g/m(2) patients, compared with corresponding best supportive care patients (7.5 v 4.6 months; log-ran
111 nteractive voice-response system, to receive best supportive care plus either ramucirumab 8 mg/kg or
112 fusion-dependent beta-thalassemia to receive best supportive care plus luspatercept (at a dose of 1.0
113 disease, and geographical region) to receive best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or pla
114 atic disease, and alpha-fetoprotein level to best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or pla
115 tic strategies as well as tight adherence to best supportive care practices.
116 eceived docetaxel, and 0% and 23.0% received best supportive care, respectively.
117 LIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall sur
118 as cited as a challenge to implementation of best supportive care standards.
119 very 21 days; n=441) or placebo (n=222) plus best supportive care until disease progression.
120 mab (8 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks, plus best supportive care, until disease progression, unaccep
121 imed to compare defibrotide prophylaxis plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone f
122 torical hazard ratio [HR] for cetuximab plus best supportive care vs best supportive care alone of 0.
123                                              Best supportive care was per local institutional standar
124                              Siltuximab plus best supportive care was superior to best supportive car
125 trials comparing cytotoxic chemotherapy with best supportive care were identified.
126 us infusion administered every other week or best supportive care with or without low-dose cytarabine
127 urvival of patients receiving rigosertib and best supportive care with that of patients receiving bes
128 olimus (10 mg per day) or placebo, both with best supportive care, with stratification by tumour orig

 
Page Top