ライフサイエンスコーパス: chlorambucil

1 e agents (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, or chlorambucil).

2 ctiveness of the well-known anticancer drug (chlorambucil).

3 utinib monotherapy, or obinutuzumab and oral chlorambucil.

4 d in patients who progressed on obinutuzumab-chlorambucil.

5 osphonium derivative of the nitrogen mustard chlorambucil.

6 tected CLL cells from apoptosis induction by chlorambucil.

7 lt in a major clinical benefit compared with chlorambucil.

8 ing first-line therapy with fludarabine with chlorambucil.

9 ng agents temozolomide (TMZ), carmustine and chlorambucil.

10 cyclophosphamide, or fludarabine, than with chlorambucil.

11 abine plus cyclophosphamide, fludarabine, or chlorambucil.

12 icity induced by fludarabine, cladribine, or chlorambucil.

13 apy, and 14 (8%) patients given obinutuzumab-chlorambucil.

14 lorambucil, fludarabine, or fludarabine plus chlorambucil.

15 lorambucil, fludarabine, or fludarabine plus chlorambucil.

16 remission and progression-free survival than chlorambucil.

17 tients were assigned to receive obinutuzumab-chlorambucil.

18 t does not respond to initial treatment with chlorambucil.

19 is pH dependent for both mechlorethamine and chlorambucil.

20 from the cytotoxicity of a nitrogen mustard, chlorambucil.

21 ely 4-fold resistance to the anticancer drug chlorambucil.

22 e run were conjugated at one or both ends to chlorambucil.

23 rutinib and 0.7 years (95% CI, 0.4-1.2) with chlorambucil.

24 nib, and 15 (9%) patients given obinutuzumab-chlorambucil.

25 less intense regimens like obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil.

26 tuzumab plus chlorambucil, or rituximab plus chlorambucil.

27 ior to rituximab when each was combined with chlorambucil.

28 ravenously, every 28 days, for 6 courses) or chlorambucil (0.4 mg/kg body weight [BW] with an increas

29 ingle-agent ibrutinib (420 mg/d; n = 136) or chlorambucil (0.5-0.8 mg/kg; <=12 cycles; n = 133).

30 es]) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil [0.5 mg/kg bodyweight on days 1 and 15 of e

31 lorambucil-obinutuzumab group (six cycles of chlorambucil [0.5 mg/kg, orally, on days 1 and 15 of eac

32 different anticancer drugs (caffeic acid and chlorambucil, 1 equiv each).

33 receive immediate systemic therapy with oral chlorambucil 10 mg per day continuously.

34 omly assigned patients (1:1) to receive oral chlorambucil (10 mg/m(2)) on days 1-7 of a 28 day treatm

35 cycle one, and 500 mg/m(2) thereafter) plus chlorambucil (10 mg/m(2)/d all cycles; day 1 through 7)

36 phamide (36%) than with fludarabine (10%) or chlorambucil (10%; p<0.00005).

37 tinum (2.4 mg/kg), carboplatinum (50 mg/kg), chlorambucil (12 mg/kg), BCNU (13.2 mg/kg), or TBI (80 c

38 sphamide (5%) than with fludarabine (11%) or chlorambucil (12%).

39 ne (36%) compared with patients treated with chlorambucil (17.8%; P < .001).

40 meter per day for 5 days every 28 days) plus chlorambucil (20 mg per square meter every 28 days).

41 tients, 33 of whom received prednisolone and chlorambucil, 37 ciclosporin, and 38 supportive therapy

42 s cyclophosphamide (196) for six courses, or chlorambucil (387) for 12 courses.

43 otherapy (81-92%), and 47% with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (39-55%).

44 travenously daily for 5 days every 28 days), chlorambucil (40 mg per square meter, given orally every

45 two groups (median overall survival for oral chlorambucil 5.9 [range 0-17.8] years and for observatio

46 h stable disease continued to be given daily chlorambucil 6 mg/m(2) PO for 14 consecutive days every

47 (24 [13%] of 178 patients) than obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (67 [40%] of 169 patients).

48 This is a first example of repurposing chlorambucil, a drug not used in breast and pancreatic c

49 lete response (CR), six additional cycles of chlorambucil alone could be administered.

50 with single-agent fludarabine compared with chlorambucil alone or the combination of both agents had

51 ab in MALT Lymphoma) was launched to compare chlorambucil alone versus chlorambucil plus rituximab in

52 group (109 [50%] patients; vs 98 [43%] given chlorambucil alone), with neutropenia being the most com

53 obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil alone, prolonged overall survival (hazard r

54 r clinical outcomes than does treatment with chlorambucil alone, while also being tolerable for patie

55 cantly higher for fludarabine alone than for chlorambucil alone.

56 d to that of both unconjugated Rituximab and Chlorambucil alone.

57 rambucil plus ofatumumab and 226 patients to chlorambucil alone.

58 inutuzumab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio for progression or deat

59 rituximab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34 to

60 ival in the other two groups (56 months with chlorambucil and 55 months with combined treatment).

61 ts of outcome after chemoimmunotherapy using chlorambucil and anti-CD20 treatment.

62 tor increased their sensitivity to acrolein, chlorambucil and cisplatin between 1.9-fold and 3.1-fold

63 Leukemia 4 (UK LRF CCL4) trial that compared chlorambucil and fludarabine with and without cyclophosp

64 intensive CIT, the combination treatment of chlorambucil and obinutuzumab or ofatumumab is an option

65 f 142 patients treated with fludarabine plus chlorambucil and one (0.5%) of 188 receiving fludarabine

66 d during apoptosis induced with fludarabine, chlorambucil and prednisolone.

67 tance to the cytotoxic drugs fludarabine and chlorambucil and to the novel p53-elevating agent nutlin

68 These results suggest that chlorambucil and/or an antimetabolite should be administ

69 bine plus cyclophosphamide, bendamustine, or chlorambucil) and anti-CD20 antibody (rituximab, ofatumu

70 (chlorambucil, rituximab, and rituximab plus chlorambucil), and was confirmed in the validation set.

71 ine significantly improved PFS compared with chlorambucil, and in patients with WM, it improved OS.

72 iven luciferase activity by cisplatin, BCNU, chlorambucil, and melphalan and also induced endogenous

73 For the mustards mechlorethamine, chlorambucil, and melphalan, both sites of monoalkylatio

74 apeutic option; however, response rates with chlorambucil are low, and more effective treatments are

75 ent failure was significantly shorter in the chlorambucil arm (11 vs 18 months; P = .004), but no dif

76 he fludarabine arm versus 69.8 months in the chlorambucil arm (95% CI, 61.6 to 79.8 months; P = .014)

77 versus 38.6% (95% CI, 32.0% to 45.7%) in the chlorambucil arm (P = .07).

78 cies were significantly more frequent in the chlorambucil arm with 6-year cumulative incidence rate o

79 [NE]) vs 1.3 years (95% CI, 0.9-1.6) for the chlorambucil arm.

80 ved in the fludarabine arm compared with the chlorambucil arm: PFS, 36.3 versus 27.1 months (P = .012

81 onths in the fludarabine vs 64 months in the chlorambucil arm; P = .15).

82 cisplatin were cross-resistant to melphalan, chlorambucil, arsenite, and cadmium.

83 lsulfate micellar system, in the presence of chlorambucil as a model template (anticancer drug).

84 These data support the use of chlorambucil as an acceptable treatment for many older p

85 ven had received oral cyclophosphamide and 1 chlorambucil as their main immunosuppressive drug.

86 Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil alone, prolo

87 with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil or rituximab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil monotherapy,

88 Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with rituximab-chlorambucil, r

89 h 6) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil at 0.5 mg/kg bodyweight on days 1 and 15 of

90 rds (namely, mechlorethamine, melphalan, and chlorambucil), at least in the mouse embryonic stem cell

91 icancer activities of a 63-member library of chlorambucil-based neoglycosides.

92 AFC content) in animals given carboplatinum, chlorambucil, BCNU, and TBI, but not in animals treated

93 G-CSF administration in animals treated with chlorambucil, BCNU, or TBI.

94 The reaction specificity of chlorambucil-bearing ODNs suggests that they may have ge

95 Whereas chlorambucil, busulfan, and radiophosphorus (32P) have b

96 binutuzumab-chlorambucil than with rituximab-chlorambucil, but the risk of infection was not increase

97 Interaction effects of fludarabine versus chlorambucil by age group (PFS, P = .046; OS, P = .006)

98 7 of a 28 day treatment course or to receive chlorambucil by this schedule plus intravenous ofatumuma

99 In contrast, chlorambucil (Cbl), a DNA-alkylating chemotherapeutic, i

100 cell line (human ovarian carcinoma line) to chlorambucil (CBL).

101 In this study MT was incubated in vitro with chlorambucil (CHB) under conditions where only 1:1 coval

102 of the anticancer drugs melphalan (MLP) and chlorambucil (CHB).

103 progression-free survival over obinutuzumab-chlorambucil chemoimmunotherapy, providing a chemotherap

104 This study uses a TFO-chlorambucil (chl) conjugate capable of forming site-spe

105 The nitrogen mustard Chlorambucil (Chl) generates covalent adducts with doubl

106 , which combines the DNA crosslinking moiety chlorambucil (Chl) with a sequence-selective hairpin pyr

107 A chlorambucil (CHL)-induced mutation of the jcpk (juvenil

108 rease in tumor growth delay by the weak acid chlorambucil (CHL).

109 nthracyclines induced greatest resistance to chlorambucil, cisplatin, carboplatin, and cladribine.

110 ges based on a COUPY scaffold, incorporating chlorambucil (CLB) and 4-phenylbutyric acid (4-PBA) as b

111 1, a 3-arm phase 3 trial comparing frontline chlorambucil (Clb) vs Clb plus rituximab (Clb-R) or Clb

112 In this study, chlorambucil (CLB) was chosen as a model anticancer drug

113 with 12 cycles of venetoclax or 12 cycles of chlorambucil (Clb-Obi).

114 risons), which were in turn better than with chlorambucil (complete response rate 7%, overall respons

115 Hairpin polyamide-chlorambucil conjugates containing an alpha-diaminobutyr

116 tigate whether the addition of ofatumumab to chlorambucil could lead to better clinical outcomes than

117 uced by treating patients with prednisolone, chlorambucil, cyclophosphamide, anthracycline, or fludar

118 l, showing that the observed protection from chlorambucil cytotoxicity was absolutely dependent upon

119 Conclusion Rituximab in combination with chlorambucil demonstrated superior efficacy in mucosa-as

120 Chlorambucil did not benefit from conjugation.

121 B-CLL cells whereas the cross-linking agent chlorambucil elicited both of these effects.

122 ples from the LRF CLL4 trial, which compared chlorambucil, fludarabine, and FC, were screened by TaqM

123 Regimens included chlorambucil, fludarabine, fludarabine plus rituximab (F

124 ed intergroup study comparing treatment with chlorambucil, fludarabine, or fludarabine plus chlorambu

125 Patients were randomized to therapy with chlorambucil, fludarabine, or fludarabine plus chlorambu

126 Patients were treated with chlorambucil for a median of 14.0 weeks (mean, 14.5 week

127 d, anti-CD20 antibody recently approved with chlorambucil for the initial therapy of chronic lymphocy

128 , a phase 3 study of first-line ibrutinib vs chlorambucil for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic le

129 trial (NCT02242942), comparing obinutuzumab+chlorambucil (GClb) vs obinutuzumab+venetoclax (VenG).

130 y, whereas both values were 14 months in the chlorambucil group (P<0.001 for both comparisons).

131 r groove, it is inaccessible to the tethered chlorambucil group of the ODN during the search for homo

132 significantly lower in the prednisolone and chlorambucil group than in the supportive care group (19

133 oups but were higher in the prednisolone and chlorambucil group than in the supportive care only grou

134 signment of patients to the fludarabine-plus-chlorambucil group was stopped when a planned interim an

135 70 [41%] of 169 patients in the obinutuzumab-chlorambucil group).

136 In the obinutuzumab-chlorambucil group, intravenous obinutuzumab was given o

137 Patients treated with fludarabine plus chlorambucil had more infections than those receiving ei

138 Immunosuppression with chlorambucil has not been effective, but the study desig

139 (ODNs) bearing the reactive nitrogen mustard chlorambucil have been used as sequence-directed affinit

140 anticancer activity/selectivity of the drug chlorambucil, herein we report the synthesis and antican

141 NA modifications induced by formaldehyde or chlorambucil in mixtures of calf thymus DNA, yeast RNA a

142 mission after treatment with fludarabine and chlorambucil in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukem

143 Superiority over chlorambucil in previously untreated patients with chron

144 red the efficacy of fludarabine with that of chlorambucil in the primary treatment of chronic lymphoc

145 d with that of rituximab, each combined with chlorambucil, in patients with previously untreated CLL

146 Treatment with chlorambucil induced a 10-fold sensitivity to steroids;

147 Here we describe a new chlorambucil-induced deletion allele, lstAlb, that uncov

148 ion, 6 months' therapy with prednisolone and chlorambucil is the treatment approach best supported by

149 Addition of ofatumumab to chlorambucil led to clinically important improvements wi

150 ow-up of 7.4 years, addition of rituximab to chlorambucil led to significantly better EFS (hazard rat

151 suggesting that the addition of rituximab to chlorambucil may improve efficacy with no unexpected adv

152 R-chlorambucil may improve outcome for patients who are in

153 inib monotherapy, compared with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (median not reached with acalabrutinib and

154 er drugs cisplatin, etoposide, mitoxantrone, chlorambucil, melphalan, and carmustine [1,3-bis(2-chlor

155 ODNs conjugated with either two chlorambucil moieties or a novel tetrafunctional mustard

156 domly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either chlorambucil monotherapy (6 mg/m(2)/d orally on weeks 1

157 obinutuzumab have shown superior efficacy to chlorambucil monotherapy and are standard first-line tre

158 For this population, chlorambucil monotherapy is an appropriate therapeutic o

159 or rituximab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil monotherapy, increased response rates and p

160 orably with previously published results for chlorambucil monotherapy, suggesting that the addition o

161 clax-obinutuzumab (Ven-Obi, 216 patients) or chlorambucil-Obi (Clb-Obi, 216 patients) therapy.

162 erior progression-free survival (PFS) versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in older/comorbid patients w

163 treatment with ibrutinib + venetoclax versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab regardless of MRD status at

164 versus 7.6% and 18.1% of patients receiving chlorambucil + obinutuzumab.

165 g ibrutinib + venetoclax and 26.3% receiving chlorambucil + obinutuzumab.

166 ersus 83.3% and 58.7% for patients receiving chlorambucil + obinutuzumab.

167 gh EOT+12 with ibrutinib + venetoclax versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab.

168 earance of 30 to 69 ml per minute to receive chlorambucil, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil, or rituxim

169 tuzumab and acalabrutinib vs 27.8 months for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (both P < .0001); estimated 72

170 enetoclax-obinutuzumab (Ven-Obi, n = 216) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (Clb-Obi, n = 216).

171 onger OS for acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab than chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (HR, 0.62; P = .0349).

172 d to receive ibrutinib-venetoclax (n=106) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (n=105).

173 d PFS with acalabrutinib +/- obinutuzumab vs chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (P < .0001, P <= .0009, and P

174 de dysfunction) and in one patient receiving chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (pneumonia).

175 CLL14 (venetoclax-obinutuzumab [Ven-Obi] vs. chlorambucil-obinutuzumab [Clb-Obi])) using error-correc

176 binutuzumab group and 77 had occurred in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95%

177 t-treatment infections) and 30 deaths in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (of which 10 were due to

178 ly, including a 5-week dose ramp-up]) or the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (six cycles of chlorambu

179 ing the primary analysis, one patient in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group had a serious adverse ev

180 uzumab group and in 48.1% of patients in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group, and grade 3 or 4 infect

181 enetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 7.9% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

182 he venetoclax-obinutuzumab group than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group: 88.2% (95% CI, 83.7 to

183 ed superior progression-free survival versus chlorambucil-obinutuzumab in patients with previously un

184 h longer PFS in both acalabrutinib arms than chlorambucil-obinutuzumab including in patients with hig

185 inutuzumab, n = 179; acalabrutinib, n = 179; chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, n = 177).

186 alabrutinib-obinutuzumab, acalabrutinib, and chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, respectively.

187 rutinib-venetoclax and 24.8% (16.5-34.1) for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

188 d with longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

189 signed to receive venetoclax-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

190 a site containing all four bases and bearing chlorambucil on an interior base was shown to efficientl

191 orambucil) over single therapy (rituximab or chlorambucil) on PFS.

192 months (10.6-13.8) in the group assigned to chlorambucil only (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.72;

193 single agents, such as the established drugs chlorambucil or cyclophosphamide, or the newer purine an

194 Patients treated with chlorambucil or fludarabine were more than twice as like

195 ty-seven patients were randomized to receive chlorambucil or fludarabine, alone or with cyclophospham

196 after FC (odds ratio 0.27; P = .004) but not chlorambucil or fludarabine.

197 phoma) who were randomly assigned to receive chlorambucil or fludarabine.

198 n provided greater survival benefit than did chlorambucil or fludarabine.

199 Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil or rituximab-chlorambucil, as compared with

200 analogue, bendamustine, anti-CD20 antibody, chlorambucil, or alemtuzumab as first-line or second-lin

201 either rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil, or cytarabine.

202 one or in combination with alpha-interferon, chlorambucil, or interleukin-2 (IL-2).

203 e to receive chlorambucil, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil, or rituximab plus chlorambucil.

204 hs of alternating cycles of prednisolone and chlorambucil, or supportive treatment plus 12 months of

205 the advantage of double therapy (rituximab + chlorambucil) over single therapy (rituximab or chloramb

206 nd more herpesvirus infections compared with chlorambucil (P =.008 and P =.004, respectively).

207 ere more frequent with fludarabine than with chlorambucil (P=0.08), although, overall, toxic effects

208 ) after single-agent therapy (fludarabine or chlorambucil) (P = .001), but the presence of only seven

209 (19 months with fludarabine, 18 months with chlorambucil; P = .7).

210 FS and OS was improved with fludarabine over chlorambucil (PFS: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.6, 95% CI, 0.5

211 ession-free survival than did patients given chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.22-0.4

212 ceive ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (n=113) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n=116).

213 ther venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (n=216) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n=216).

214 8-day cycles, for a total of six cycles]) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil [0.5 m

215 y 1000 mg on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil at 0.5

216 hed [95% CI 33.6-non-estimable]) than in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (19.0 months [15.1-

217 sepsis) and two (1%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (n=1 septic shock,

218 n death) and one (1%) of 115 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (neuroendocrine car

219 roup versus 102 [48%] of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group).

220 ab group and 95 (44%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group.

221 umab group vs 35.6 months (33.7-40.7) in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group.

222 us obinutuzumab group and 31% (23-40) in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group.

223 Both single-agent ibrutinib and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab have shown superior effic

224 bination of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in first-line chronic lym

225 ination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previous

226 y improve progression-survival compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab, thereby providing a limi

227 ab and 40 (35%) of 115 patients treated with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab.

228 , 2011, we randomly assigned 221 patients to chlorambucil plus ofatumumab and 226 patients to chloram

229 (95% CI 19.0-25.2) in the group assigned to chlorambucil plus ofatumumab compared with 13.1 months (

230 eater adverse events were more common in the chlorambucil plus ofatumumab group (109 [50%] patients;

231 Chlorambucil plus ofatumumab is therefore an important t

232 nts were reported in 22 (10%) patients given chlorambucil plus ofatumumab.

233 aunched to compare chlorambucil alone versus chlorambucil plus rituximab in patients not previously g

234 udy (Randomized Trial of Chlorambucil Versus Chlorambucil Plus Rituximab Versus Rituximab in MALT Lym

235 d to assess how the addition of rituximab to chlorambucil (R-chlorambucil) would affect safety and ef

236 of triplex formation relative to the rate of chlorambucil reaction.

237 r deep-red light activation, enabling direct chlorambucil release.

238 Chlorambucil remains the standard of care in many countr

239 t was shown that in MCF7 cells resistance to chlorambucil requires both intact MRP1-dependent efflux

240 Combination therapy with fludarabine plus chlorambucil resulted in significantly more infections t

241 mab-chlorambucil, as compared with rituximab-chlorambucil, resulted in prolongation of progression-fr

242 yamine-based chemoselective glycosylation of chlorambucil revealed sugar- and linker-dependent partit

243 conjugate (ADC) consisting of Rituximab and Chlorambucil (Rituximab-CMB) was synthesized.

244 nongastric lymphomas, in each treatment arm (chlorambucil, rituximab, and rituximab plus chlorambucil

245 vely; trend over dose categories, P =.04) or chlorambucil (RRs = 3.8 and 8.4 for duration < 10 months

246 17 to 18, and 21 to 22) or a combination of chlorambucil (same schedule as above) and rituximab (375

247 of MRP1 alone failed to confer resistance to chlorambucil, showing that the observed protection from

248 utropenia were more common with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil than with rituximab-chlorambucil, but the r

249 e SO may be a lifelong condition and because chlorambucil therapy may offer long-term, drug-free remi

250 Short-term, high-dose chlorambucil therapy provides sustained periods of drug-

251 hs; range, 48-441 months) from initiation of chlorambucil therapy.

252 The randomized WM1 study (Trial Comparing Chlorambucil to Fludarabine in Patients With Advanced Wa

253 creening for crosslinks in formaldehyde- and chlorambucil-treated calf thymus DNA.

254 one (0.5%) of 188 receiving fludarabine; no chlorambucil-treated patients developed t-MDS or t-AML (

255 ons and herpesvirus infections compared with chlorambucil-treated patients.

256 m was to compare administration of immediate chlorambucil treatment with a policy of delaying chloram

257 Venetoclax or chlorambucil treatment-related deaths were reported in o

258 Ibrutinib or chlorambucil treatment-related deaths were reported in o

259 rambucil treatment with a policy of delaying chlorambucil until clinical progression necessitated its

260 The IELSG-19 study (Randomized Trial of Chlorambucil Versus Chlorambucil Plus Rituximab Versus R

261 Analysis of chlorambucil versus the combination arm was performed an

262 pecified before randomization as alternating chlorambucil, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisolon

263 improved side-effect profile, the regimen of chlorambucil, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone

264 a survivor of Hodgkin lymphoma treated with chlorambucil-vinblastine-procarbazine-prednisolone.

265 free survival, 26.7 months with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; ha

266 .24; P<0.001; and 16.3 months with rituximab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; ha

267 total cumulative dose of cyclophosphamide or chlorambucil was 118 gm and 6.5 gm, respectively, over a

268 Oral chlorambucil was given (0.5 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of e

269 In arm A, chlorambucil was given daily 6 mg/m(2) orally (PO) for 6

270 g oligonucleotide with a terminally appended chlorambucil was shown to label a target guanine residue

271 ponding values for 181 patients treated with chlorambucil were 4 percent and 33 percent (P< 0.001 for

272 Previously, combinations of fludarabine and chlorambucil were abandoned because of increased toxicit

273 Early studies combining fludarabine and chlorambucil were abandoned owing to increased toxicity

274 rge cumulative doses of cyclophosphamide and chlorambucil were associated with the development of MDS

275 s with SO treated with short-term, high-dose chlorambucil were identified.

276 The nitrogen mustards, melphalan and chlorambucil, were both conjugated to 2, and the biologi

277 rutinib with or without obinutuzumab against chlorambucil with obinutuzumab in patients with treatmen

278 A total of 100 patients were treated with R-chlorambucil, with a median follow-up of 30 months.

279 the addition of rituximab to chlorambucil (R-chlorambucil) would affect safety and efficacy in patien