ライフサイエンスコーパス: evaluable

1 ty-three patients were enrolled, and 72 were evaluable.

2 Six patients were included, and 5 were evaluable.

3 otal of 612 patients were enrolled; 563 were evaluable.

4 of or newly diagnosed germ cell tumors were evaluable.

5 Thirty patients with PMBL were treated and evaluable.

6 t cancer were enrolled to the study and were evaluable.

7 ssigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable.

8 Six patients were included and five were evaluable.

9 leukaemia; 43 of the enrolled patients were evaluable.

10 Fourteen patients were evaluable.

11 5%) of the 5522 patients were not clinically evaluable.

12 e patients were treated, one of whom was not evaluable.

13 One hundred eighty-nine of 208 patients were evaluable.

14 thods Of the 534 enrolled patients, 504 were evaluable.

15 to ineligibility after enrolment and 61 were evaluable.

16 the 311 patients enrolled, 306 patients were evaluable (156 in group A and 150 in group B).

17 ence 3.3, 95% CI -2.2 to 9.0) and clinically evaluable (278 [98%] of 284 vs 279 [96%] of 292; 2.3, -0

18 were enrolled, of whom 660 were eligible and evaluable (330 in the chemoradiotherapy group, and 330 i

19 both the ITT (90.1% vs 89.0%) and clinically evaluable (97.9% vs 95.2%) populations.

20 rved in 24 (69%) of the 35 patients who were evaluable after cycle 1.

21 We enrolled 256 women with evaluable anal pathology.

22 cy analyses were carried out on the efficacy evaluable and intention-to-treat populations.

23 Eighty-eight women were enrolled (83 evaluable), and 85% (75 of 88) completed all four cycles

24 ies positive for PD-L1 expression (n = 28/40 evaluable), and response rates were higher in PD-L1-posi

25 Of 13 enrolled men, 10 were evaluable, and only 2 (20% [95% CI, 2.5%-55.6%]) were cu

26 Of 13 enrolled men, 10 were evaluable, and only two (20%, 95%CI: 2.5% - 55.6%) were

27 A total of 755 patients were evaluable, and the mean age was 62.3 +/- 9.5 years, 31%

28 ies lasting >= 3 years occurred after 51% of evaluable anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatments.

29 Of 302 children enrolled, 241 were evaluable as L-aGVHD, cGVHD, active L-aGVHD or cGVHD, an

30 rted medical therapy, of whom 400 (93%) were evaluable at 52 weeks and 386 (90%) completed the study

31 mong 75 nivolumab-treated patients alive and evaluable at the 5-year analysis, 83% had not received s

32 received their assigned treatment, provided evaluable biopsy samples, and did not have major protoco

33 study, adult patients (aged >=18 years) with evaluable, biopsy-confirmed, locally recurrent or metast

34 ischemia, provided coronary CTA images were evaluable by FFR(CT), whereas PET had a favorable perfor

35 Of 727 women who were evaluable by GCIG CA125 criteria at the time of diagnosi

36 Among 424 participants with evaluable carotid magnetic resonance images, the mean ag

37 nase demonstrated its phosphorylation in the evaluable cases and revealed a good correlation with the

38 ospitals in the database that had 20 or more evaluable cases for the study period.

39 ug in the modified ITT (mITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations (noninferiority margin, 10%).

40 treated with daptomycin for VRE-BSI and with evaluable clinical outcomes.

41 least 1 dose of SNF472 or placebo and had an evaluable computed tomography scan after randomization.

42 c analysis of 13 patients for whom data were evaluable confirmed that the doses selected were appropr

43 received 1 ITA grafted to the LAD and had an evaluable coronary angiogram.

44 [range, 22-74 years]; 15 [75%] female) with evaluable data.

45 years with solid tumours with measurable or evaluable disease (by Response Evaluation Criteria in So

46 astatic colorectal cancer with measurable or evaluable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Gr

47 Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a comple

48 , one or more previous lines of therapy, and evaluable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Sol

49 Among 64 patients with evaluable disease, 59 (92%) had a partial response or st

50 e staining of >/=1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemi

51 owed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease.

52 Overall, 367 patients had evaluable DR at months 36 and 48.

53 aClip or GDMT alone; 599 had core laboratory evaluable echocardiograms.

54 ed >/=18 years) with recurrent measurable or evaluable epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fal

55 Baseline mean sensitivity (3,468 loci; 51 evaluable eyes) was 7.7 dB and for foveal, parafoveal, a

56 pacity (25.4%), let alone in a consistent or evaluable fashion (1.5%).

57 st one dose of study treatment and thus were evaluable for 12-week efficacy.

58 Results: Forty-eight of 72 patients were evaluable for a first response assessment with both PET-

59 hemotherapy treatment after surgery and were evaluable for activity and safety.

60 line assessment; therefore, 23 patients were evaluable for activity assessment.

61 of 101 patients (66.3%; 95% CI, 56.2%-75.4%) evaluable for alopecia in the scalp cooling group vs 0 o

62 Among 16 patients evaluable for efficacy analysis, 2 (12.5%) patients achi

63 Of 18 patients evaluable for efficacy, 39% (7/18) remain recurrence-fre

64 ears; 90% female); 1355 of 1465 (92.5%) were evaluable for efficacy.

65 d Oct 8, 2015, we enrolled 92 women; 85 were evaluable for efficacy.

66 patients were enrolled, and 33 patients were evaluable for efficacy.

67 Results: 48/72 patients were evaluable for first response assessment with both PET- a

68 26 patients were evaluable for interim activity assessment, with at least

69 Results Of 41 enrolled patients, 38 were evaluable for MTD determination.

70 in a prospective multicenter trial, 132 were evaluable for OS/PFS.

71 hundred one patients (66 SR and 35 HR) were evaluable for outcome.

72 and Sept 3, 2018, 796 had tumours that were evaluable for PD-L1 expression (278 [35%] were PD-L1-pos

73 for testing, 252 patients (88%) of 288 were evaluable for PD-L1 expression and 98 patients (82%) of

74 ho received CD19 CAR T-cell therapy and were evaluable for response achieved MRD-negative CR by high-

75 igh (5 x 10(8)) dose of CART-19, and 24 were evaluable for response assessment.

76 ts did not receive protocol therapy and were evaluable for response but not toxicity.

77 Among 82 patients evaluable for response to first-line therapy, 31 patient

78 Results Of 263 patients evaluable for response to induction, 127 (100%) of 127 p

79 Of the patients evaluable for response, objective responses were 12 (43%

80 elected (high) dose and of these, eight were evaluable for response.

81 atients were enrolled; 295 were eligible and evaluable for response.

82 2 months (IQR 53.8-70.0) for the 57 patients evaluable for response.

83 ompleting at least one cycle of therapy were evaluable for response.

84 Twenty-three patients were evaluable for response.

85 treat basis among eligible patients who were evaluable for response.

86 d underwent baseline disease assessment were evaluable for response.

87 Sixteen patients (94%) were evaluable for response; five (29%) experienced a confirm

88 All patients were evaluable for safety and efficacy.

89 ved at least one dose of the study drug were evaluable for safety and patients who received one cycle

90 vents were anaemia (34 [13%] of 260 patients evaluable for safety in the subcutaneous group and 36 [1

91 adverse events in the remaining 16 patients evaluable for safety were pain (seven [44%] of 16), hypo

92 atezolizumab at 15 mg/kg or 1200 mg and were evaluable for safety.

93 ne and 47 assigned placebo, all of whom were evaluable for safety.

94 group did not receive treatment and were not evaluable for safety.

95 All patients were evaluable for survival and safety analyses.

96 igible patients who initiated treatment were evaluable for the activity and toxicity analyses.

97 duloxetine and 128 who received placebo were evaluable for the primary analysis.

98 Thirty-four patients were evaluable for the primary end point of a prostate-specif

99 Thirty-three patients were enrolled; 32 were evaluable for the primary end point.

100 49 patients for each olaparib dose), with 92 evaluable for the primary endpoint (46 patients for each

101 participants in the cediranib group were not evaluable for the primary endpoint (one did not start tr

102 t least one dose of study treatment and were evaluable for the primary endpoints.

103 rin group and 5764 in the placebo group were evaluable for the primary outcome.

104 irradiation group and 2089 in the APBI group evaluable for the primary outcome.

105 107 (35%; 69 in arm A and 38 in arm B) were evaluable for therapy.

106 s before data cutoff, of whom 790 (75%) were evaluable for TMB and included in efficacy analyses.

107 toff (June 27, 2019), of whom 805 (76%) were evaluable for TMB, and 105 (13%) of 805 had tTMB-high st

108 ceiving at least one dose of study drug were evaluable for toxicity and all patients completing at le

109 art A, 13 patients were enrolled and 12 were evaluable for toxicity.

110 and Dec 31, 2018, and 75 patients were fully evaluable for toxicity.

111 patients were enrolled in part B and 63 were evaluable for toxicity.

112 623 (270, 89, and 264, respectively) were evaluable for week 52 efficacy.

113 en aged 18 years or older with measurable or evaluable high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sen

114 s regardless of receiving treatment who were evaluable (ie, had progression, began a new anticancer t

115 ody surface area 60.7 [11.9] g/m(2)), 90 had evaluable imaging at follow-up.

116 PSA response assessment was evaluable in 132 patients and seen in 25 of 62 (40%) T-p

117 remission, and minimal residual disease was evaluable in 192 (87%).

118 Outcomes were evaluable in 444 failure occurred in 187 (42.1%; 95% con

119 ee survival was 48.2 months (95% CI 35.2-not evaluable) in the A+CHP group and 20.8 months (12.7-47.6

120 acebo group and not reached (95% CI 32.3-not evaluable) in the lenalidomide group.

121 ; of them, 17 studies with a maximum of 8279 evaluable infants were eligible for assessment of humora

122 indings and electroretinography (ERG) on 244 evaluable injections in 63 patients using 30-Hz flicker

123 The ORR was 52% in 42 evaluable lenalidomide-refractory patients.

124 ast 3 months, and at least one measurable or evaluable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criter

125 Of 244 evaluable M. genitalium infections (52 women, 68 heteros

126 ria in all patients who were treated and had evaluable measurements.

127 All (22/22) evaluable men had at least one responding bone lesion at

128 Of the 4721 participants, 2715 had an evaluable MRI.

129 Eligible patients had measurable or evaluable non-measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative On

130 parent surveys in a per protocol analysis of evaluable parents.

131 opsies to evaluate changes in bone in the 32 evaluable participants between the time of KTx and 12 mo

132 At end-induction, 98.8% of evaluable participants had at least a PR.

133 In TRULIGHT, 13/15 (87%) of evaluable participants on dual therapy had no detectable

134 Of 25 evaluable participants, 10 were alive at the completion

135 Among 914 evaluable participants, 28.7% (95% confidence interval [

136 0 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) in 53 of 1227 (4.3%) evaluable participants.

137 We planned to enroll 50 evaluable participants; assuming gentamicin was 80% effi

138 With median follow-up of 34 months, 15 of 84 evaluable patients (17.9%) progressed.

139 was positive in 57 of 121 randomly assigned evaluable patients (47%) who received Clo+AraC and 42 of

140 letrozole (-4.1 v -2.2; P < .001) in the 190 evaluable patients (61.9%), corresponding to a geometric

141 Overall, 265/429 therapy-evaluable patients (62%) were matched to >=1 recommended

142 on within 24 hours was reported in 92 of 134 evaluable patients (68.7%) after a median duration of 2.

143 Of 16 evaluable patients (9 adults and 7 children), 1 had a pa

144 episodes or PVC burden were reduced in 17/18 evaluable patients (94%).

145 The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible,

146 s were assessed for response, and, among the evaluable patients (n = 24), response and peak CAR T-cel

147 % confidence interval [CI], 73-94) among all evaluable patients (stringent complete response, 12%; co

148 ohorts, 15 (15%; 95% CI 8.6-23.5) out of 100 evaluable patients achieved an objective response, with

149 ith CD79B and/or MYD88 mutations, and 86% of evaluable patients achieved complete remission with DA-T

150 Seventeen of 58 evaluable patients achieved complete response (CR) or pa

151 the planned second interim analysis with 42 evaluable patients and a median follow-up of 0.8 years (

152 Evaluable patients assigned to the twice-daily and thric

153 Of 149 evaluable patients at 12 months, primary effectiveness w

154 Efficacy-evaluable patients completed at least one cycle of treat

155 ed in five cohorts: cohorts 1-4 included six evaluable patients each; cohort 5 included 19 patients i

156 ups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atez

157 this study, if at least five of 25 response-evaluable patients had an objective response, cabozantin

158 Twelve (63%) of 19 evaluable patients had an objective response.

159 Twenty-two (31%) of the 70 evaluable patients had an objective responses, including

160 terim analysis on Oct 11, 2019, the first 25 evaluable patients had an overall response rate of 64% (

161 was sustained over 7 years of treatment; all evaluable patients had RGI-C scores of at least +2 at ye

162 If at least 19 (43%) of 44 evaluable patients in a dose cohort responded, then the

163 In the 42 evaluable patients in cohort one, there was one complete

164 Two-year rates for the 71 evaluable patients in the 11.5 and 12.0 Gy/fx cohorts we

165 0 mg cohort, and 18 (39.1%; 25.1-54.6) of 46 evaluable patients in the 300 mg cohort.

166 s achieved in eight (24.2%; 11.1-42.3) of 33 evaluable patients in the 400 mg cohort and six (16.2%;

167 hieved in 25 (54.3%; 95% CI 39.0-69.1) of 46 evaluable patients in the 400 mg cohort, and 18 (39.1%;

168 38 (38%) of 99 evaluable patients in the anti-thymocyte globulin plus G

169 for infection, compared with 12 (2%) of 535 evaluable patients in the antibiotic shunt group (cause-

170 even (27% [95% CI 11.6-47.8]) of 26 response-evaluable patients in the basket expansion achieved obje

171 32 (6%) of 533 evaluable patients in the standard shunt group had a shu

172 We randomized 402 and 393 evaluable patients to the control or clofarabine inducti

173 nd Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and

174 The overall response rate in efficacy-evaluable patients was 32% (8/25).

175 Median follow-up time for all evaluable patients was 42 months (IQR 36-62).

176 ), 3-month progression-free survival for all evaluable patients was 65.6% (95% CI 46.6-79.3).

177 The PFS at 18 months for the 28 evaluable patients was 82%, meeting the primary end poin

178 g ASS deficiency, the best response among 21 evaluable patients was complete response (CR) in 2 (9.5%

179 he complete and overall responses for the 32 evaluable patients were 28% (90% CI, 16% to 44%) and 44%

180 n-free survival and overall survival for all evaluable patients were 36% (95% CI, 21% to 51%) and 94%

181 The 1-year PFS probabilities in all evaluable patients were 38% and 50% after CD19 CAR T-cel

182 25, 2013, and June 12, 2015, 25 eligible and evaluable patients were accrued to stratum 1, and betwee

183 28, 2013, and June 25, 2015, 25 eligible and evaluable patients were accrued to stratum 3.

184 five maintenance randomized trials in 3,837 evaluable patients were analyzed.

185 Data from 89 evaluable patients were available for the purpose of ana

186 Forty-two evaluable patients were enrolled, with a median age of 6

187 Between 2007 and 2011, 404 evaluable patients were enrolled.

188 529 evaluable patients were included in the analysis: low-ri

189 One thousand one hundred two evaluable patients were necessary to demonstrate noninfe

190 For cohort A, 13 or more responses among 78 evaluable patients were required to infer activity and t

191 Eighty evaluable patients were required to test the null hypoth

192 etic stem cell transplant patients, 68 of 70 evaluable patients who received continuous renal replace

193 Among 33 radiographically evaluable patients who underwent surgery, 18 (54.5%) had

194 een patients met the inclusion criteria; 105 evaluable patients with CNS-negative disease had a 5-yea

195 In 86 evaluable patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (D

196 aper and pulse treatment on 100 consecutive, evaluable patients with recurrent Clostridium difficile

197 citabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in 730 evaluable patients with resected pancreatic ductal adeno

198 LOH1p/16q was detected in 49 of 1,147 evaluable patients with stage I/II disease (4.27%) enrol

199 LOH1p/16q was detected in 82 of 1,364 evaluable patients with stage III/IV disease (6.01%) in

200 sseminated cells commonly (81%, 17 out of 21 evaluable patients) seed metastases while the carcinoma

201 R4 cohort (three [2%; 90% CI 0.2-4.8] of 121 evaluable patients) than in the MMR cohort (nine [19%; 9

202 d a reported response rate of 55% (six of 11 evaluable patients).

203 d a reported response rate of 100% (10 of 10 evaluable patients); patients subsequently treated with

204 Of 15 evaluable patients, 11 (73%) with stable disease or bett

205 Furthermore, among 19 evaluable patients, 14 (74%) were off CSs.

206 n patients were ineligible, resulting in 328 evaluable patients, 159 in the experimental arm and 169

207 In all 46 evaluable patients, 22 (48%) patients achieved a complet

208 Of 45 evaluable patients, 40 (89%) were found to be MRD negati

209 Of 65 evaluable patients, 54 were < 36 months of age.

210 Among 47 evaluable patients, an objective response rate of 32% wa

211 In group 1, of 28 evaluable patients, an objective response was achieved b

212 In group 2, of 27 evaluable patients, an objective response was achieved b

213 Among these 57 evaluable patients, as of Aug 1, 2017, one (2%) patient

214 In the 13 evaluable patients, correlation (R(2) ) between semiquan

215 There were 301 out of 650 evaluable patients, including 192 patients classified as

216 Overall, in 23 evaluable patients, including six patients with low HER2

217 Of 69 evaluable patients, median age was 45 years (range, 24 t

218 Results Among the 29 evaluable patients, only 31% met Response Evaluation Cri

219 In the 23 evaluable patients, overall response rate was 26% (95% C

220 In 26 CTC-evaluable patients, taxane-induced decrease in %ARNL (cy

221 Among 42 evaluable patients, the magnitude of the 9p24 gene abnor

222 In response-evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was

223 ssessment was 121 (79%, 95% CI 72-85) of 153 evaluable patients, with 24 (16%) having complete respon

224 l counts <1000/uL were noted in 12/106 (11%) evaluable patients, with rates similar across doses.

225 enous decitabine exposure was expanded to 18 evaluable patients.

226 with tracer showed good tumor uptake in all evaluable patients.

227 jective response rate of 42% in the first 12 evaluable patients.

228 assessed in Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg cells in evaluable patients.

229 ete responses and 8 partial responses) in 30 evaluable patients.

230 tumor marker decline was observed in 9 of 11 evaluable patients.

231 assessments were excluded, resulting in 452 evaluable patients.

232 more months without progression) in 4 of 10 evaluable patients.

233 ence interval (CI), 21-45) among 65 response-evaluable patients.

234 ved in 17 (18.48%; 95% CI 11.15-27.93) of 92 evaluable patients.

235 MR cohort (nine [19%; 90% CI 9.5-28.0] of 48 evaluable patients; hazard ratio 0.12, 90% CI 0.04-0.37;

236 er cladribine achieved lower rate (67% of 21 evaluable patients; P = .0034) and durability (P = .0081

237 Three out of four evaluable pediatric participants discontinued transfusio

238 , 0.8; 95% CI, -4.1, 5.8) and the clinically evaluable population (218/225 [96.9%] vs 222/231 [96.1%]

239 24 or progression if sooner, assessed in the evaluable population (all randomly assigned participants

240 er protocol, in the all-treated and efficacy-evaluable population (defined as patients who received a

241 % and 93.6%, respectively, in the clinically evaluable population (difference, -3.9% [1-sided 97.5% C

242 dose, in the mITT population and clinically evaluable population (ie, mITT patients who had a qualif

243 d independent central review in the efficacy-evaluable population (ie, patients with NTRK fusion-posi

244 The DCR was 34.5% in the evaluable population (modified intention to treat, mITT;

245 In the safety-evaluable population (n=87), the most common adverse eve

246 umors (RECIST), version 1.1, in the response-evaluable population (patients with measurable disease a

247 or this analysis (May 31, 2018) the efficacy-evaluable population comprised 54 adults with advanced o

248 NTRK fusion-positive safety evaluable population comprised all patients who have rec

249 The safety-evaluable population for the safety analysis included al

250 95% CI 64-88) of 53 patients in the efficacy-evaluable population had an objective response.

251 The efficacy-evaluable population included adult patients (aged >=18

252 The pharmacokinetic-evaluable population included all patients who received

253 arker association and endpoint analysis, the evaluable population included all randomly assigned pati

254 Overall safety evaluable population included patients from STARTRK-1, S

255 um of target marker lesion diameters for the evaluable population was -8.3% (IQR -26.5 to 5.9) with c

256 Data from the evaluable population were analyzed from July 31, 2013, t

257 8 [5%] of 355 patients in the overall safety-evaluable population) and anaemia (8 [12%] and 16 [5%]).

258 In the clinically evaluable population, 199 (77.4%) of 257 participants we

259 In the safety-evaluable population, 79 (59%) of 134 patients had grade

260 nts were analysed per protocol in the safety evaluable population, defined as all patients who receiv

261 In the intention-to-treat safety-evaluable population, grade 3-4 treatment-related events

262 Median overall survival for RP2D treated evaluable population, is 11.7 months (95%CI 8.6-15.7 m,

263 In the efficacy-evaluable population, the overall response rate (ORR) wa

264 Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat evaluable population, which comprised all enrolled patie

265 odified ITT population and in the clinically evaluable population.

266 9) and 65% (22 of 34; 47-80) in the efficacy-evaluable population.

267 The primary analysis was done in the evaluable population.

268 nts were included in the safety and activity evaluable populations, 25 in phase 1b and 57 in phase 2.

269 Analyses were done in intent-to-treat and evaluable populations.

270 y intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, 4 of 54 evaluable pregnancies resulted in a primary outcome (7.4

271 Evaluable primary outcomes were seroprotection (HI titre

272 d baseline plasma concentrations of 5 of 266 evaluable proteins (angiopoietin 1, cystatin B, the late

273 Cancer of the Prostate-ICECaP-database with evaluable PSA and disease follow-up data were analyzed.

274 t final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline a

275 ed the e-questionnaire of which 692 provided evaluable responses.

276 completed the vaccine/placebo series and had evaluable results at week 26 or 52.

277 A total of 2,342 evaluable samples (1,777 clinical and 565 contrived) wer

278 Of all evaluable samples for 9p24.1 analysis, 16% exhibited low

279 or each gene, thus, increasing the number of evaluable samples up to 70.6%.

280 Of 273 patients with evaluable scans, 92 (34%, 95% CI 28-40) had femoral deep

281 Evaluable SD OCT macular cube scans from patients with 2

282 independent review committee in the efficacy-evaluable set (comprising all patients who had confirmed

283 The activity evaluable set included all patients who received at leas

284 Of 256 patients included in the efficacy-evaluable set, an objective response was achieved by 186

285 Of the 604 evaluable specimens, GAS was detected in 154 (25.5%) sam

286 was expressed on MCC tumor cells in 100% of evaluable specimens.

287 Evaluable subjects included 30 patients with severe and

288 Among 1,327 evaluable subjects, site-defined nonresponse was 20.0% (

289 We planned to enroll 50 evaluable subjects; assuming gentamicin was 80% efficaci

290 The median event-free survival of all 45 evaluable treatments was 55 months.

291 (DOR) were 51% (95% CI, 35% to 67%) for all evaluable treatments, 48% (95% CI, 28% to 69%) for DLBCL

292 ived at least one dose of pembrolizumab, had evaluable tTMB data, and were enrolled at least 26 weeks

293 r activity and tTMB in treated patients with evaluable tTMB data.

294 Evaluable tumors were analyzed for WT1mutation, 1p and 1

295 -1, adequate organ function, and had to have evaluable tumour tissue for PIK3CA genotyping.

296 survival was 13.93 months (95% CI 11.73-not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone

297 Results: One hundred thirty-eight scans were evaluable, with significant differences in success and f

298 Among 42 PK-evaluable women from 5 African countries, median age was

299 Among 42 PK-evaluable women from five African countries, median age

300 airment was assessed among a subgroup of 552 evaluable women using the 37-item Functional Assessment