ライフサイエンスコーパス: phase I trial

1 sion in rectal cancer patients enrolled in a phase I trial.

2 ponse was determined within the context of a phase I trial.

3 carboplatin had acceptable tolerability in a phase I trial.

4 cell or adenocarcinoma were treated on this phase I trial.

5 emonstrated therapeutic potential in a prior phase I trial.

6 e systemic dose range considered safe in the Phase I trial.

7 Fifteen patients enrolled onto this phase I trial.

8 Eleven patients were entered onto this phase I trial.

9 s preclinical study, the authors performed a phase I trial.

10 by the minimal toxicity and survival in this phase I trial.

11 of a ligand fusion-protein, DAB389IL-2, in a phase I trial.

12 enicity of RG7787 is now being assessed in a phase I trial.

13 patients with sarcoma in a disease-specific phase I trial.

14 lind, placebo-controlled, within-dose cohort phase I trial.

15 e-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation Phase I trial.

16 and normal CEA levels were eligible for this phase I trial.

17 e-escalation and single-stage expansion of a phase I trial.

18 bilization for three or more courses in this phase I trial.

19 n was well tolerated by CLL patients in this phase I trial.

20 tively in upcoming Children's Oncology Group phase I trials.

21 termined by Monte Carlo simulation of 60,000 phase I trials.

22 tients was more frequent than predicted from phase I trials.

23 esponse rates are increasingly reported from phase I trials.

24 is and fatigue than was anticipated from the phase I trials.

25 feasibility of a novel two-stage design for phase I trials.

26 c indications, beginning with well-conducted phase I trials.

27 participation or of the research purpose of phase I trials.

28 -Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in two concomitant phase I trials.

29 clinical trials but did not progress beyond phase I trials.

30 n the low likelihood of medical benefit from phase I trials.

31 should improve the safety and efficiency of phase I trials.

32 ing such designs to guide dose escalation in phase I trials.

33 RT to better select appropriate patients for phase I trials.

34 using a large patient database from multiple phase I trials.

35 es with survival, validating RECIST's use in phase I trials.

36 itors blocking this signaling cascade are in phase I trials.

37 al initiatives to assist communication about phase I trials.

38 selected cohort of 78 patients enrolled onto phase I trials.

39 g steps is the initiation of first-in-human (phase I) trials.

40 In a phase I trial, 11 adults with hematologic malignancies r

41 Forty-nine children were enrolled onto this phase I trial (24 with acute nonlymphoblastic leukemia [

42 In this phase I trial, 46 patients were treated with irofulven d

43 Thus, by enrolling as a participant in a phase I trial, a patient otherwise eligible for hospice

44 On the basis of observed responses in a phase I trial, a phase II trial of romidepsin in patient

45 er Therapeutics Evaluation Program-sponsored phase I trials activated between 2000 and 2010 was used.

46 dren with cancer (n = 85) who were offered a phase I trial along with their parents and physicians.

47 This successful phase I trial also provides a possible avenue for achiev

48 Where possible, pediatric phase I trials also define the pharmacokinetic behavior

49 sults of our pilot study do not suggest that phase I trials always cost payers more than standard tre

50 In a previous phase I trial, an alum formulation of ICC-1132, a malari

51 ength of stay in the ICU was 3.7 days in the Phase I trial and a mean of 3 days in the Phase II trial

52 It is in Phase I trial and has shown promise in controlling prost

53 We report results of a phase I trial and pharmacokinetic study of pemetrexed (L

54 This Phase I trial and preclinical studies support additional

55 nging areas of cancer clinical research, the phase I trial and the randomized controlled trial, are d

56 s about the emergence of multi-institutional phase I trials and about using the optimal biologic dose

57 tanding of either provided information about phase I trials and alternatives to trial participation o

58 s Perspectives, we highlight key elements of phase I trials and discuss how each one of them contribu

59 ly ethical concerns regarding the conduct of phase I trials and had realistic expectations of the pot

60 rent guidelines for the conduct of pediatric phase I trials and represents a consensus between Americ

61 CAM use is common among patients in phase I trials and should be ascertained by investigator

62 efficient method for evaluating the cost of phase I trials, and it warrants further study.

63 tastases might be appropriately entered into phase I trials, and we present our approach for their st

64 cophenolate mofetil) and others are entering phase I trials (anti-BLyS monoclonal antibody).

65 This study was undertaken to determine how phase I trials are currently conducted and to provide a

66 Phase I trials are increasingly including dose-expansion

67 atives to the standard design for conducting phase I trials are proposed with increasing frequency.

68 toxicity (DLT) help to assure that pediatric phase I trials are safely conducted and reliably identif

69 Phase I trials are under way using anti-CD20-IL-2 immuno

70 We initiated two phase I trials assessing the combination of gefitinib, c

71 ed in other concurrently active conventional phase I trials at our institution.

72 py), with those choosing to participate in a phase I trial being more optimistic than those declining

73 cted from 2,182 eligible patients treated in phase I trials between 2005 and 2007 in 14 European inst

74 mic studies are frequently incorporated into phase I trials, but it is uncommon that they guide dose

75 The study was conducted in a phase I trial by escalating the duration of gemcitabine

76 90-day mortality among patients enrolled in phase I trials by 50%.

77 et routinely implemented in the setting of a phase I trials clinic.

78 efficacy of EGFR inhibitors, we performed a phase I trial combining dasatinib, an SFK and multikinas

79 ltiply-relapsed B-cell NHL were treated in a phase I trial combining iodine-131 tositumomab (ranging

80 eriences with the interactive subject-choice phase I trial design and consent process, was conducted

81 Although complex, our innovative phase I trial design is feasible.

82 A novel phase I trial design was used to determine the maximum-t

83 f the traditional 3 + 3 patients per cohort, phase I trial design with a novel, rolling six design wa

84 recombinant human endostatin (rh-Endo) in a phase I trial designed to assess safety, pharmacokinetic

85 be used in combination with BCNU in another phase I trial designed to determine the maximal-tolerate

86 Herein, we report the results of a phase I trial designed to examine the effects of Theradi

87 All patients in phase I trials do not have equivalent susceptibility to

88 Many parents of children participating in phase I trials do not understand the purpose of these tr

89 In a phase I trial, each patient received two cycles as follo

90 This phase I trial (EGF10005) assessed the safety, optimally

91 In this phase I trial, eligible patients received a single injec

92 In this phase I trial, eligible patients were treated with a sin

93 During this phase I trial, encouraging antitumor activity was been o

94 Internet information and unproven therapies, phase I trial enrollment, and working as a multidiscipli

95 likely to agree that alternate care plans to phase I trial entry had been explained (odds, 2.5; P = .

96 tool in the process of patient selection for phase I trial entry.

97 This phase I trial evaluated an HIV-1 DNA vaccine with the pl

98 Purpose This phase I trial evaluated epigenetic modulation of vascula

99 This pilot phase I trial evaluated the safety and maximum-tolerated

100 We report the initial results of a Phase I trial evaluating this strategy for safety and th

101 A previous clinical Phase I trial examined OKT3 as an immunomodulator for th

102 e rate for one cycle of this therapy in this phase I trial for patients with leukemia was 18% (95% co

103 Overall response rates in this phase I trial for strata I and II were 42% and 63%, resp

104 ral solid tumor types, and the initiation of phase I trials for A2AR antagonists in oncology, this ap

105 domains of diphtheria toxin, is presently in phase I trials for patients with resistant acute myeloid

106 e clinical solution to challenges arising in phase I trials from the dose-dependent side effects of t

107 We examined abstract records of cancer phase I trials from the Science Citation Index database

108 Here, in the phase I trial GAPVAC-101 of the Glioma Actively Personal

109 In phase I trials gefitinib was well tolerated and antitumo

110 Approximately 36% of patients enrolled onto phase I trials had mild renal dysfunction by FDA criteri

111 ial comparing the regimens derived from this phase I trial has recently begun.

112 In recent reviews, more than 95% of phase I trials have been based on the 3 + 3 design.

113 To date, three phase I trials have been conducted using paclitaxel alon

114 For many years, oncology phase I trials have been referred to as 'toxicity trials

115 Toxic death rates on phase I trials have decreased from 0.8% in 1979 to 0.5%

116 RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple phase I trials have demonstrated the feasibility, short-

117 Recent phase I trials have established the efficacy and safety

118 data, coupled with the observations of a new phase I trial in human peripheral atherosclerosis, sugge

119 onal antibody 18B7 (IgG1) is a candidate for phase I trial in humans with cryptococcosis.

120 METHODS AND A randomised, open-label phase I trial in Lambarene, Gabon, studied 5 single intr

121 een shown to possess antiviral activity in a phase I trial in patients chronically infected with geno

122 ranslation of this vaccination strategy to a phase I trial in patients with cancer.

123 A phase I trial in patients with CLL was conducted to eval

124 growth factor, is currently the subject of a Phase I trial in patients with ischemic heart disease.

125 These preclinical studies were followed by a phase I trial in patients with neoplastic meningitis.

126 A phase I trial in patients with NHL was conducted to dete

127 r activity in a single dose, dose-escalation phase I trial in patients with solid tumors.

128 e antitumor immune responses, we conducted a phase I trial in patients with surgically resected adeno

129 After a phase I trial in stable renal transplant recipients docu

130 hicago who were eligible to participate in a phase I trial in which they underwent a three-step infor

131 Little is known about the cost of phase I trials in cancer patients compared with that of

132 including Roneparstat, a modified heparin in phase I trials in myeloma patients, significantly inhibi

133 Distinctive characteristics of pediatric phase I trials, in comparison to adult phase I trials, i

134 atric phase I trials, in comparison to adult phase I trials, include the necessity for multiinstituti

135 This Phase I trial indicated that CNTF is safe for the human

136 The primary objective of pediatric phase I trials is to define safe and appropriate doses a

137 The phase I trial itself sought to determine the associated

138 In addition to the phase I trial itself, a survey that consisted of structu

139 and in a patient with gastric cancer on the phase I trial led to this phase II study of flavopiridol

140 ree end-of-life decisions: enrollment onto a phase I trial (n = 7), adoption of a do not resuscitate

141 escribed here is a participant in an ongoing phase I trial (NCT00902044; active, not recruiting), and

142 server-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase I trial (NCT03300050), safety and immunogenicity o

143 In this phase I trial, newly diagnosed patients with malignant g

144 odies and have permitted the initiation of a phase I trial of (211)At-labeled chimeric 81C6 administe

145 The purpose of this study was to conduct a phase I trial of (90)Y-DOTATOC to determine the dose-tox

146 A phase I trial of 13-cis-retinoic acid (CRA), IFNalpha, a

147 An earlier Phase I trial of 131I-labeled mAb A33 (131I-mAb A33) dem

148 Subsequently, a phase I trial of 35 patients was performed between April

149 A phase I trial of 9-aminocamptothecin (9-AC) was performe

150 A phase I trial of a tolerogen directed at anti-beta2-glyc

151 A phase I trial of ABT-888 (veliparib), a PARP inhibitor,

152 These studies constitute the first phase I trial of an avipox recombinant in cancer patient

153 vasculature of solid tumors, we performed a phase I trial of antibody J591, targeting the extracellu

154 A phase I trial of ARQ 197 was conducted to assess safety,

155 We conducted a phase I trial of carboxyamidotriazole (CAI, NSC 609974),

156 We conducted a phase I trial of carmustine (BCNU) plus O(6)-BG to defin

157 We conducted a phase I trial of concurrent subcutaneous (SC) administra

158 th advanced cancer (pre-phase I) or during a phase I trial of DACA in five patients.

159 and young adult subjects participating in a Phase I trial of defined composition CD19CAR T cells (NC

160 In a phase I trial of depsipeptide conducted at the National

161 nd (3) can facilitate a concentration-guided phase I trial of DMSO.

162 A phase I trial of docetaxel was performed to determine th

163 ive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were treated on a phase I trial of dose escalation using the ProMACE-CytaB

164 enrolled on a prospective single-institution phase I trial of dose-escalated hypofractionated RT with

165 We conducted a phase I trial of escalating doses of topotecan (TOPO) in

166 We conducted a phase I trial of gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor r

167 We conducted a phase I trial of gemcitabine given twice weekly with con

168 This report describes the results of a phase I trial of huOKT3gamma1(Ala-Ala) treatment of acut

169 IL-2 regimen for testing this hypothesis, a phase I trial of IL-2 (Roche) was performed in children

170 he measured data in 10 of 14 patients in the phase I trial of intra-Ommaya radioimmunotherapy using (

171 udy, we report the results of a first-in-man phase I trial of intranodal direct injection (IDI) of Ad

172 We performed a phase I trial of intrathecal (IT) liposomal cytarabine (

173 A phase I trial of intrathecal (IT) mafosfamide was perfor

174 A phase I trial of intrathecal (IT) topotecan was performe

175 A phase I trial of intravitreally injected autologous bone

176 ed to be as similar as possible to the adult phase I trial of ixabepilone on the same schedule.

177 A phase I trial of lenalidomide was performed in children

178 l complete remission in a recently completed phase I trial of leukemias and lymphomas.

179 reported up to 90% seroconversion rates in a phase I trial of live-attenuated dengue-virus vaccines i

180 Additionally, results from a Phase I trial of MEHD7495A, a dual-action antibody that

181 In this phase I trial of MSP-1(19), immunization of nonexposed h

182 A phase I trial of MTA and gemcitabine was undertaken, bas

183 This pediatric phase I trial of O6-benzylguanine (O6BG) and temozolomid

184 In this phase I trial of patients with metastatic RCC, the combi

185 In a phase I trial of PD0332991, several patients with WDLS o

186 We evaluated tumor lysate-pulsed DC in a Phase I trial of pediatric patients with solid tumors.

187 We performed a phase I trial of protracted venous infusion (PVI) fluoro

188 A phase I trial of R115777 in refractory and relapsed acut

189 A phase I trial of recombinant human endostatin was design

190 We performed a phase I trial of recombinant human interleukin-11 (rhIL-

191 gator-initiated single-dose, dose-escalation phase I trial of RTX in chronic dialysis patients (PRA >

192 acy, and tolerability observed in a previous phase I trial of subcutaneous PEG-uricase.

193 The Children's Cancer Group conducted a phase I trial of temozolomide stratified by prior cranio

194 The tragic sequelae of the phase I trial of TGN1412 at Northwick Park demonstrated

195 A phase I trial of the antiangiogenesis agent cilengitide

196 We conducted a phase I trial of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor,

197 We present the results of the first human phase I trial of the Ii-Key hybrid HER-2/neu peptide (AE

198 We conducted a phase I trial of the injectable formulation of topotecan

199 In a phase I trial of the MMP inhibitor COL-3 in patients wit

200 We conducted a phase I trial of the novel nucleoside analog, gemcitabin

201 significance has been the initiation of the phase I trial of the Trivascular Enovus graft.

202 We conducted a pediatric phase I trial of the vascular endothelial growth factor

203 This pediatric phase I trial of tipifarnib determined the maximum-toler

204 es from breast cancer patients enrolled on a phase I trial of trastuzumab and IL-12, and found elevat

205 The first phase I trial of UCN-01 demonstrated a very prolonged ha

206 in the first 5 participants enrolled in this phase I trial of virus-based gene transfer in this mitoc

207 Phase I trials of a calicheamicin immunoconjugate for tr

208 ta that have guided the design of subsequent phase I trials of ABT-888 in combination with DNA-damagi

209 s peptide to NOD mice prevents diabetes, and phase I trials of an altered peptide ligand of B:9-23 ar

210 The standard design for phase I trials of combined chemotherapy and radiation, w

211 ncer and Leukemia Group B conducted parallel phase I trials of cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposid

212 we report cardiac safety surveillance from 6 phase I trials of MVA vaccines.

213 Phase I trials of single doses up to 500 mg/m2 and 4 wee

214 Similarly, Phase I trials of the BAL in acute liver failure patient

215 We performed two phase I trials of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vori

216 reclinical glioma models, and have initiated phase I trials of these vaccines in patients with malign

217 origin are used worldwide as xenografts, and phase I trials of viable pig pancreatic islets are curre

218 y and alternative medicine (CAM) usage among phase I trial participants and to describe these patient

219 Eligible patients had been offered phase I trial participation and had decided to participa

220 communication and information sharing about phase I trial participation are often missing from inter

221 Cancer patients offered phase I trial participation have expectations for treatm

222 erstanding of possible risks and benefits of phase I trial participation, through direct subject invo

223 ts may provide useful supplementary data for phase I trials, particularly with regard to toxicity and

224 against the allogeneic donor.METHODSIn this phase I trial, patients received either 1.5 x 106 MICs p

225 In this Phase I trial, patients' peripheral blood dendritic cell

226 Our two phase I trials provide preliminary evidence supporting t

227 We identified 53 phase I trials published between January 2003 and Septem

228 This summary of phase I trials recently conducted at M.D. Anderson Cance

229 and EMBASE, limiting studies to single-agent phase I trials recruiting adults and published after 200

230 all molecule inhibitor MLN4924, currently in phase I trials, represents an unprecedented opportunity

231 basis of preclinical evidence and a previous phase I trial, respectively.

232 On the basis of phase I trial results, we conducted a double-blind, rand

233 s a good predictor of clinical response?; in phase I trials should effective biological dose, not max

234 This phase I trial sought to evaluate the toxicity of and det

235 , and has moved at an unprecedented speed: a phase I trial started in March 2020 and there are curren

236 The current phase I trial suggests that polyoximes may prove useful

237 A phase I trial that evaluated for extrahematopoietic toxi

238 rties of imatinib were investigated during a phase I trial that included 64 adult patients with Phila

239 monitoring rule for safety using a completed phase I trial that included an expansion cohort.

240 We showed in a phase I trial that the maximum tolerated dose of the Pro

241 d from 82 patients entered in four different phase I trials that were previously reported as separate

242 studies demonstrated that in an HIV vaccine phase I trial, the DP6-001 trial, a polyvalent Env DNA p

243 We report a Phase I trial to assess the maximum tolerated dose, toxi

244 We report the first phase I trial to assess the safety and immunogenicity of

245 Therefore, we designed this phase I trial to define the dose-limiting toxicities (DL

246 We conducted a phase I trial to define the presurgical dose required fo

247 administered as primary cancer therapy in a phase I trial to determine (1) whether mixed chimerism c

248 A Phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose of

249 We performed a phase I trial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (M

250 rexate (MTX) in lymphoblasts, we developed a phase I trial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (M

251 We report the results of a phase I trial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (M

252 We performed a Phase I trial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose, s

253 We conducted this phase I trial to determine the safety and toxicity profi

254 We performed a phase I trial to determine whether in vivo expansion of

255 designed as a single-blind, escalating-dose phase I trial to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity

256 We conducted a phase I trial to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MT

257 bjects were inoculated in an adaptive-design phase I trial to rapidly identify colonizing doses of NT

258 Limiting pediatric phase I trials to a maximum of four doses levels would s

259 Phase I trials unit referrals at our center over 5 years

260 d hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), initial phase I trials used a 90-, 60-, 30-minute initial infusi

261 The MTD of this phase I trial using an accelerated titration design was

262 Here, we report a phase I trial using the Vaxxas HD-MAP to deliver a monov

263 Receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy as part of phase I trial was also associated with shorter median OS

264 A double-blind randomized phase I trial was conducted in human immunodeficiency vi

265 A phase I trial was conducted in which a uniform quantity

266 nd paclitaxel-resistant ovarian carcinoma, a phase I trial was conducted that combined increasing day

267 A phase I trial was conducted to determine the maximally t

268 This phase I trial was conducted to determine the safety, tol

269 A Phase I trial was conducted to evaluate this strategy fo

270 A phase I trial was conducted to test the safety of CP-675

271 This phase I trial was designed to (1) establish the dose of

272 This National Cancer Institute-sponsored phase I trial was designed to determine the feasibility

273 This multi-institutional phase I trial was designed to determine the maximum-tole

274 A phase I trial was initiated to determine the dose-limiti

275 A phase I trial was performed to evaluate this strategy fo

276 A phase I trial was performed with combretastatin A4 phosp

277 The primary objective of this phase I trial was to define the maximum-tolerated dose o

278 The primary objective of this phase I trial was to define the maximum-tolerated dose o

279 The primary objective of this phase I trial was to determine the feasibility of admini

280 The primary objective of this phase I trial was to determine the maximum-tolerated dos

281 Building on a previously reported phase I trial, we carried out a prospective phase II tri

282 re observed in kidney cancer patients in the phase I trials, we performed a phase II trial of flavopi

283 peared to be active against breast cancer in phase I trials, we performed this phase II study.

284 h the aim of improving patient selection for phase I trials, we previously performed a retrospective

285 The objectives of this phase I trial were to determine the maximum-tolerated do

286 eas 83% of UKCCSG respondents indicated that phase I trials were associated with ethical difficulties

287 Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20%

288 m 1990 to 2004 and their corresponding adult phase I trials were reviewed.

289 Advanced cancer patients enrolling onto phase I trials were surveyed regarding biologically base

290 c, castration-resistant prostate cancer in a phase I trial where sequential cohorts were treated with

291 a novel treatment can be obtained in current phase I trials, which can therefore be considered to hav

292 ents with advanced solid tumors treated in a phase I trial with expansion cohorts.

293 We conducted a phase I trial with healthy adults to evaluate WRSS1, a l

294 ha-particle-emitting (211)At, we performed a phase I trial with intraperitoneal alpha-particle therap

295 ted synergistic antitumor activity, and in a phase I trial with M-ILI it had minimal toxicity.

296 A phase I trial with recombinant PspA showed the protein t

297 Both approaches have concluded phase I trials with no serious adverse events.

298 ilot study the costs of care for patients on phase I trials with those incurred for standard treatmen

299 Recently, phase I trials with two novel small-molecule cdk modulat

300 ty-nine patient-subjects participated in the phase I trial, with 24 who agreed to and completed the s