ライフサイエンスコーパス: progression-free survival

1 state cancer and are associated with reduced progression free survival.

2 represent a worse prognostic factor for PCa progression free survival.

3 the accuracy of the 2 methods for predicting progression-free survival.

4 M and identify patients with prolongation of progression-free survival.

5 The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival.

6 rize patients with glioblastoma according to progression-free survival.

7 he primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.

8 c (18)F-DOPA WBMB (>7.5) was associated with progression-free survival.

9 gative predictive values were calculated for progression-free survival.

10 oestradiol uptake was associated with longer progression-free survival.

11 d during relapse and correlated with shorter progression-free survival.

12 An additional endpoint was progression-free survival.

13 ints were overall survival and imaging-based progression-free survival.

14 nformation about overall survival instead of progression-free survival.

15 e correlation between staining intensity and progression-free survival.

16 extensive nodularity (MBEN; n = 42) had 93% progression-free survival (5y-PFS), 100% overall surviva

17 study reported no significant improvement in progression-free survival (a primary endpoint) with week

18 For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strate

19 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluati

20 The primary end point was progression-free survival among the first 480 patients w

21 At the time of final progression-free survival analysis and interim overall s

22 ifferent from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival analysis of ICON8, which defin

23 h node ratio was an independent predictor of progression free survival and overall survival.

24 iations between gene expression features and progression free survival and response to treatment were

25 its levels of editing correlate with a worse progression-free survival and disease stage.

26 Patients responding to R-CHOP had median progression-free survival and OS times of 5.4 and 9.8 ye

27 nse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-free survival and overall survival (group A

28 Results: Median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were

29 Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed

30 At 10 years, progression-free survival and overall survival estimates

31 h a median follow-up of 533 days, the 1-year progression-free survival and overall survival for all e

32 stuzumab and capecitabine resulted in better progression-free survival and overall survival outcomes

33 azitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus ab

34 a median follow-up of 11 months, the 1-year progression-free survival and overall survival were 23%

35 At 12 months, the estimated progression-free survival and overall survival were 61%

36 e overall survival, event-free survival, and progression-free survival and safety.

37 show a clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival and was associated with more a

38 s third-line or fourth-line therapy improved progression-free survival and was better tolerated compa

39 latinum led to superior overall survival and progression-free survival, and a higher proportion of pa

40 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and all analyses were done on

41 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all pat

42 ated with response to neoadjuvant treatment, progression-free survival, and overall survival as end p

43 ulation frequencies with treatment response, progression-free survival, and overall survival was also

44 ent-reported health-related quality of life, progression-free survival, and overall survival.

45 nd points included the duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety.

46 an follow-up of 18.9 months (IQR 10.4-23.8), progression-free survival as assessed by the study inves

47 ee survival analysis of ICON8, which defined progression-free survival as the time from randomisation

48 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independen

49 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention to treat

50 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by BICR.

51 s in the olaparib arm achieved longer median progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independe

52 Progression-free survival at 1 year was 33.1% in the tuc

53 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 24 months, assessed in the

54 Progression-free survival at 3 years was 74% (95% CI, 69

55 Progression-free survival at 6 months was 27%, and overa

56 e probability of observing an improvement in progression-free survival at a given cohort size.

57 Median follow-up for progression-free survival at data cutoff (July 10, 2018)

58 ensitivity analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival at the overall survival databa

59 s with glioblastoma is controversial because progression-free survival benefit did not translate into

60 f PARP inhibitors, which have demonstrated a progression-free survival benefit in the BRCAm cohort.

61 Taken together with the lack of progression-free survival benefit, these findings do not

62 respecified two-sided alpha of 0.2 in median progression-free survival between group A (8.3 months, 9

63 (n=1552), the difference in estimated median progression-free survival between the CDKI plus fulvestr

64 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival between the two combination-th

65 ocetaxel before RP would improve biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) over RP alone.

66 and abemaciclib, have significantly improved progression-free survival by a number of months when com

67 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent central review.

68 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review in the i

69 Primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survivals calculated from day 1 of trea

70 e first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration

71 ignificant improvement in post-randomization progression-free survival compared with intermittent dos

72 Ripretinib significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with placebo and had

73 The KRd regimen did not improve progression-free survival compared with the VRd regimen

74 dition of capivasertib prolonged a composite progression-free survival (cPFS) end point that included

75 Secondary end points were progression-free survival, DCR, OS, safety, and correlat

76 The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival, defined as the proportion of

77 a primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival, defined as time from date of

78 %; p < 0.001), a significantly longer median progression-free survival duration (1.7 months [95% conf

79 The 5-year progression-free survival estimate was 87% (95% CI, 79%

80 rogression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progression-free survival events had occurred, 49 (71%)

81 ib group and 37 in the placebo group had had progression-free survival events.

82 26(+)CD8(+) T cells correlated with improved progression-free survival following ICB.

83 Median progression-free survival for women with a GCIG CA125 re

84 We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hor

85 We compared progression-free survival from the second randomization

86 QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function x the 3-level version

87 The primary endpoints (overall survival and progression-free survival) have been published previousl

88 n/100 g +/- 21 for ypT0-1; P = .01), shorter progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.97; 95% conf

89 d was independently associated with inferior progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.5; P = .02) a

90 The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detaile

91 y reflecting its effectiveness for extending progression-free survival; however, these parameters wer

92 ignificantly reduced GBM growth and improved progression free survival in two clinically relevant ort

93 icantly enhanced tumor growth inhibition and progression-free survival in an aggressive model of undi

94 However, progression-free survival in both study groups exceeded

95 The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival in cohort A according to blind

96 No difference was observed between median progression-free survival in group B (5.7 months, 95% CI

97 helper cells that is associated with longer progression-free survival in HNSCC patients.

98 ht serve as a potential biomarker to predict progression-free survival in I-BLCA.

99 pathways may postpone resistance and extend progression-free survival in many cancer indications.

100 3 activity associating with poor overall and progression-free survival in melanoma patients undergoin

101 metastasis showed a significant reduction in progression-free survival in patients allocated to cetux

102 tion of capivasertib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in patients with aromatase inh

103 fe and tolerable and significantly increased progression-free survival in patients with BRAF(V600) mu

104 is interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or

105 ed in significant and durable improvement in progression-free survival in patients with germline BRCA

106 ib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic an

107 of a theranostic agent in markedly improving progression-free survival in patients with metastatic ga

108 ine platinum-based chemotherapy and prolongs progression-free survival in patients with metastatic ur

109 emotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged progression-free survival in patients with metastatic ur

110 cell dose, is associated with longer OS and progression-free survival in patients with relapsed CLL.

111 docetaxel was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in platinum-refractory, advanc

112 ibitor-treated patients (n=2252), the median progression-free survival in the CDKI plus aromatase inh

113 The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in the induction phase, and ov

114 all survival analysis (May 31, 2019), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat popu

115 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat popu

116 Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat popu

117 ed the combination treatment for group A and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat popu

118 for olaparib was also seen for imaging-based progression-free survival in the overall population (coh

119 .6-1.9) in the triplet therapy group, median progression-free survival is 1.2 years (95% CI 1.7-not r

120 At the time of primary analysis for progression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progressio

121 metabolic response, toxicity (CTCAE), local progression-free survival (LPFS) and patient perception

122 patients (de novo) had an ORR of 44%, median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 6 months, and 16% CR

123 esponse and maintained this response, with a progression-free survival of 29 months at last assessmen

124 exhibited an enrichment in response rate and progression-free survival of 44% and 6.2 months vs 19% a

125 cantly better long-term survival with 5-year progression-free survival of 49% vs 30%, 34%, and 23%, r

126 gnificant differences were found between the progression-free survival of iPET- and iPET+ patient gro

127 e and its account is clinically validated in progression-free survival of patients with HNC.

128 plantation and a plethora of new agents, the progression-free survival of patients with PTCLs needs t

129 At the primary analysis for progression-free survival of the phase 3 ALCYONE trial,

130 etween PD-L1 CPS >= 10 and treatment arm for progression-free survival or overall survival.

131 without obinutuzumab significantly improved progression-free survival over obinutuzumab-chlorambucil

132 Participants were monitored for safety, progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and im

133 response, disease control rate at 32 weeks, progression-free survival, overall survival, and pharmac

134 ry end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

135 duration of response, disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

136 neutrophil/T-cell ratio resulted in inferior progression-free survival (P < .001).

137 nt difference in overall survival (P = .75), progression-free survival (P = .79), or response duratio

138 translocations and associated with divergent progression-free survival patterns.

139 Objective response rate and progression-free survival per investigator assessment we

140 e primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criter

141 primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criter

142 ORR), immune-related adverse events (irAEs), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS

143 cantly and positively associated with longer progression free survival (PFS) in patients treated with

144 le) for predicting loco-regional control and progression free survival (PFS).

145 verse TME associated with 17 fewer months of progression-free survival (PFS) (95% confidence interval

146 as continuous variable, was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.9

147 C) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.279; P = 0.011) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.276; P = 0.006).

148 rolactin (PRL) levels (p = 0.02) and shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.02) compared to p

149 R segment counts were associate with longer progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.32,

150 les predictive for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after (225)Ac-PSMA-617 t

151 plasma samples from patients based on their progression-free survival (PFS) after FOLFIRINOX.

152 red, by Cox proportional hazards regression, progression-free survival (PFS) after relapse (second PF

153 ement strategies, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with PMNS

154 Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survi

155 S and BMS < 4 were associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS

156 Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS

157 e TMTV(REF) in terms of prognostic value for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS

158 algorithm were applied to predict patients' progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS

159 The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS

160 terruptions and delays, quality of life, and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS

161 After median follow-up of 56 months, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS

162 Outcome measures were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate.

163 The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) at week 48, using a 15%

164 The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent c

165 We developed an imaging signature to predict progression-free survival (PFS) by fitting an L1-regular

166 x plus rituximab (VenR) resulted in improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bendamusti

167 Early progression-free survival (PFS) events were associated w

168 ere the only abnormalities with an effect on progression-free survival (PFS) for both treatment group

169 Median duration of response and progression-free survival (PFS) have not been reached; t

170 ating-characteristic analyses using a median progression-free survival (PFS) of >= 9 mo and overall s

171 The OS and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with complet

172 Additionally, the progression-free survival (PFS) of stage IV patients was

173 Thrombosis was not associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS)

174 this subset, the 1-year overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) probabilities were 86% a

175 e interval [CI], 78.9-99.9) and an estimated progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 months of 91.

176 The median 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate for all patients wa

177 SD and HD arms, respectively, 5-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 32.1% and 23%

178 Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) stratified by mutation p

179 The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2 and 3.9 months in

180 The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months, and the

181 The progression-free survival (PFS) was 32% +/- 6%, and the

182 Median DOR and progression-free survival (PFS) were 11.0 and 4.5 months

183 Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated.

184 , which demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab

185 wed statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with tucatinib.

186 se rate (ORR); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), 6-month PFS, and overal

187 Analyses included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response

188 rmed data extraction; overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response ra

189 tcomes were toxicity, response to treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (O

190 points included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (O

191 ives included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (D

192 d points included major response rate (MRR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (D

193 End points were progression-free survival (PFS), freedom from transforma

194 Noninferiority was assumed for progression-free survival (PFS), if the upper limit of t

195 for the other study, which provided data on progression-free survival (PFS), no statistically signif

196 ival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate

197 Progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and adverse events

198 included overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and patient-r

199 Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality o

200 Additional end points were progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, biomarkers of

201 primary end point of this meta-analysis was progression-free survival (PFS).

202 condary end points included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

203 be associated with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

204 linical or radiographic characteristics with progression-free survival (PFS; by RECIST) were evaluate

205 e, aiming to achieve similar outcome (2-year progression-free survival [PFS] >= 90%) with reduced tre

206 tion arms, respectively, had not progressed (progression-free survival [PFS] population).

207 to 19.4% (n = 6/31; second line) and median progression-free survival ranging from 5.5 months (fourt

208 However, the progression-free survival rate for the CRPC patients on

209 5.9 years (range, 0.5-10 years), the 6-year progression-free survival rate of patients who underwent

210 The 4-year overall and progression-free survival rates after UCB transplantatio

211 and bevacizumab achieved better overall and progression-free survival rates than sorafenib in unrese

212 he RVd group progressed; respective 24-month progression-free survival rates were 95.8% and 89.8%.

213 t the overall survival database lock, median progression-free survival remained significantly improve

214 Progression-free survival results favoured the CDKI grou

215 The final progression-free survival results were previously report

216 Estimated median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and real-world overall

217 ctively categorized 28 patients according to progression-free survival (short-term or long-term) with

218 ing P-AscH(-) have demonstrated increases in progression free survival, suggesting a reduction in met

219 plus obinutuzumab had a significantly longer progression-free survival than did patients given chlora

220 ib led to significantly longer imaging-based progression-free survival than the physician's choice of

221 Progression-free survival, the primary end point, was im

222 Progression-free survival, the primary endpoint, remaine

223 The estimated median progression-free survival time was 65 months (95% CI, 58

224 achieve a PSA50 was associated with shorter progression-free survival, time on treatment, and overal

225 ved rates of stringent complete response and progression-free survival versus bortezomib, thalidomide

226 KdD significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus Kd in patients with rel

227 ant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-chemotherapy am

228 maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo.

229 rant, and trastuzumab significantly improved progression-free survival versus standard-of-care chemot

230 Median progression-free survival was 10.1 months for arm A (95%

231 Median progression-free survival was 10.3 months (95% CI 5.0-13

232 The median progression-free survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 5.0 t

233 Median progression-free survival was 13.3 months (95% CI 11.7-1

234 Median progression-free survival was 13.4 months in the standar

235 Median progression-free survival was 13.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 t

236 nths (5.6-NE) in the EZH2(WT) cohort; median progression-free survival was 13.8 months (10.7-22.0) an

237 Median progression-free survival was 13.93 months (95% CI 11.73

238 Median progression-free survival was 14.4 months (95% CI 9.2-28

239 Median progression-free survival was 14.5 months (95% CI 12.5-1

240 Median progression-free survival was 17 mo (range, 0-30 mo), an

241 estrant-treated patients (n=396), the median progression-free survival was 18.6 months (95% CI 14.8-2

242 The median progression-free survival was 2.1 months (95% CI, 2.0 mo

243 Median progression-free survival was 2.5 months (95% CI 1.7-2.8

244 Median progression-free survival was 20.7 months (95% CI, 11.3

245 Median progression-free survival was 22.2 months (95% CI 18.3-2

246 Median progression-free survival was 22.9 weeks (17.9-72.0) for

247 second planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 34.6 months (95% CI 28.8-3

248 Median progression-free survival was 4.2 months in the ganetesp

249 duration of response was 5.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.2 months, and median ove

250 The median progression-free survival was 40.2 months in patients wi

251 Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI 3.4-5.9

252 r the atezolizumab monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4

253 Median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.3 to

254 In the double-blind period, median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (95% CI 4.6-6.9

255 Progression-free survival was 6.7 months and overall sur

256 Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 6.9 months (IQR 2.8-10.9).

257 ponse was 79% (95% CI, 54 to 94), and 1-year progression-free survival was 64% (95% CI, 37 to 82).

258 The median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.4-9.

259 Median progression-free survival was 7.6 and 5.6 months (HR, 0.

260 The median progression-free survival was 7.7 weeks (95% confidence

261 o 0.71; P<0.001), and the median duration of progression-free survival was 7.8 months and 5.6 months,

262 At 24 months, progression-free survival was 77.1% (95% CI 59.9-87.7).

263 Median progression-free survival was 8.2 months (95% CI 5.8-10.

264 from the time of CAR T-cell infusion, median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.0 to

265 d trials, the difference in estimated median progression-free survival was 8.8 months in favour of CD

266 fidence interval [CI], 55 to 81), and 1-year progression-free survival was 82% (95% CI, 69 to 90).

267 With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuv

268 mong patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9.7 months with pembrolizu

269 ponse was 73% (95% CI, 62 to 82), and 1-year progression-free survival was 92% (95% CI, 82 to 97).

270 One-, 2-, and 3-year progression-free survival was 98%, 93%, and 91% for the

271 The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analy

272 Median progression-free survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meie

273 Progression-free survival was longer in the BEV group (3

274 ow-up of 28.3 months (IQR 25.6-33.1), median progression-free survival was longer with acalabrutinib-

275 Similarly, progression-free survival was lower after UCB transplant

276 Median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not es

277 follow-up of approximately 17 months, median progression-free survival was not reached in the KdD gro

278 months (IQR 46-59), no difference in median progression-free survival was observed (RVd 33.64 months

279 The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was published previously.

280 Progression-free survival was significantly improved wit

281 Progression-free survival was significantly improved wit

282 Progression-free survival was significantly longer in pa

283 In cohort A, imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in th

284 Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with

285 -free survival of the phase 3 ALCYONE trial, progression-free survival was significantly longer with

286 Progression-free survival was significantly longer with

287 Progression-free survival was significantly longer with

288 Progression-free survival was slightly increased with a

289 Radiographic and clinical progression-free survival were 1.2 years and 3.3 years l

290 Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs for progression-free survival were estimated by means of Cox

291 No significant correlations with progression-free survival were found.

292 int was independent review facility-assessed progression-free survival, which has been reported previ

293 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which has been reported previ

294 The median progression-free survival while on ipilimumab and nivolu

295 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0.20

296 linical trials clearly demonstrated improved progression-free survival with targeted therapy over che

297 ent in independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival with venetoclax versus placebo

298 The primary end point was progression-free survival, with disease progression requ

299 continued to show significant improvement in progression-free survival, with no new safety concerns.

300 irumab plus docetaxel significantly improves progression-free survival, without a significant improve