ライフサイエンスコーパス: time to progression

1 CL2-positive subgroup (log-rank P < .001 for time to progression).

2 lic frequency and pooled overall survival or time to progression.

3 evels by alphaDC1 positively correlated with time to progression.

4 d not experience shorter overall survival or time to progression.

5 here was a 2.75-fold reduction in the median time to progression.

6 ACC cohort to identify genes associated with time to progression.

7 The primary end point of the study was time to progression.

8 ovariates predictive of overall survival and time to progression.

9 a higher CD8 count did not have an increased time to progression.

10 A), time to response, response duration, and time to progression.

11 he association of baseline relative CBV with time to progression.

12 ne tumor SUV(max) was associated with longer time to progression.

13 meshwork of SMZL infiltrates correlates with time to progression.

14 outcomes included safety, response rate, and time-to-progression.

15 and 67.0%]) and a follow-up analysis (median time to progression [23.4 months and 13.1 months]) have

16 , stable disease in 16 patients (80%; median time to progression, 34 mo), and progressive disease in

17 ence in response rates (48% v 43.6%), median time to progression (4.1 v 4.6 months), or overall survi

18 follow-up PET showed a significantly shorter time to progression (47 vs. 119 d; P < 0.001) and overal

19 (22% v 7%, respectively; P < .0001), median time to progression (5.3 v 2.8 months, respectively; P <

20 5.1 months (range, 0.2-27.7 months), median time to progression = 5.1 months (range, 0.2-27.7 months

21 documented relapsed follicular lymphoma and time to progression 6 months or longer from last rituxim

22 Patterns of failure and median time to progression (8.2 v 7.3 months; P = .67) were sim

23 superior for FOLFOX4 compared with rIFL for time to progression (9.7 v 5.5 months, respectively; P <

24 henotype and that positively correlated with time to progression, 95% were associated with immune fun

25 In addition, disease response and time to progression according to the Response Evaluation

26 verse effects of treatment after sASCT had a time to progression advantage.

27 of CA19-9 and sTRA had statistically longer time-to-progression after surgery.

28 atients treated with pemetrexed had a longer time to progression and a longer survival than their cou

29 ce therapy after ASCT significantly improved time to progression and could be considered a standard o

30 Median time to progression and duration of response were 5.5 an

31 Median time to progression and duration of response were 9.5 an

32 ity is an independent factor associated with time to progression and has potential as a predictive im

33 Median time to progression and median duration of response were

34 The median time to progression and median progression-free survival

35 7 and with clinical outcome measures such as time to progression and overall survival (OS).

36 onse to biochemotherapy (P = 0.02) and worse time to progression and overall survival (P = 0.009 and

37 That study showed improved time to progression and overall survival and an increase

38 has resulted in a significant improvement in time to progression and overall survival for patients wi

39 Median time to progression and overall survival were 10 and 38

40 Median time to progression and overall survival were not reache

41 ed to the outcome (recurrence-free survival, time to progression and overall survival) in several can

42 lower adverse effects after sASCT had longer time to progression and overall survival, showing the ne

43 ;14) have clinical importance for estimating time to progression and overall survival.

44 of metastatic disease such as pain response, time to progression and progression-free survival, while

45 CR/nPR was correlated with both an extended time to progression and survival (P < .0001).

46 ostic value was assessed by correlation with time to progression and survival time.

47 Median time to progression and survival were 7.2 and 16.9 month

48 Median time to progression and survival were 9.3 and 14.1 month

49 condary end points included an estimation of time to progression and survival.

50 Radioembolization resulted in longer time-to-progression and less toxicity than chemoemboliza

51 Median times to progression and survival were 5.8 and 19.1 mont

52 -free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to progression, and duration of response were also

53 The response rate, time to progression, and median survival were slightly s

54 l benefit but also improved quality of life, time to progression, and overall survival compared with

55 FOLFOX4 led to superior RR, time to progression, and overall survival compared with

56 nt end points of metastasis prevention, SRE, time to progression, and overall survival in the context

57 Median progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival were 6.6 month

58 Safety, clinical response, time to progression, and overall survival were assessed.

59 Clinical and radiologic outcome, time to progression, and overall survival were evaluated

60 ciated with CR and overall remission, longer time to progression, and overall survival.

61 These agents improve response rates, time to progression, and overall survival.

62 overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, and safety.

63 T was assessed by tumor volume measurements, time to progression, and survival in C4-2 or C4-2 TP53 (

64 er high-dose dexamethasone in response rate, time to progression, and survival in patients with myelo

65 Median time to response, time to progression, and survival time were 2.0, 4.3 and

66 status, tumor size, surgical margin status, time to progression, and time to death.

67 ely induced disease stabilization, prolonged time to progression, and were associated with antigen sp

68 uperior clinical efficacy (overall survival, time-to-progression, and prostate-specific antigen decli

69 Time to progression as determined by independent review.

70 trials that use progression-free survival or time to progression as their primary end point, because

71 9c* was an independent prognostic factor for time to progression as well as survival after surgical c

72 We assessed frequency of and time to progression, as well as proportional increase of

73 The primary end point was time to progression, based on an evaluation by independe

74 necessary for adaptive therapy to extend the time to progression beyond that of a standard-of-care co

75 ate the association between relative CBV and time to progression by using Kaplan-Meier curves.

76 assifications were independent predictors of time to progression compared to known clinical prognosti

77 We performed this study to determine if time to progression could be used as an end point for su

78 Median time to progression could not be calculated in the HSCT

79 The median time to progression/discontinuation was 6.6 months in pa

80 d points of progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, duration of response, safety, and t

81 Randomized phase II trials with a time-to-progression endpoint are proposed as pivotal for

82 luations 6 months apart, with differences in time to progression estimated as hazard ratios.

83 Using time to progression following prostatectomy as the relev

84 ls of HER2 homodimers correlated with longer time to progression following trastuzumab therapy in a c

85 Median time to progression for all 34 eligible patients enrolle

86 The median time to progression for all patients was 2.3 months (95%

87 Median time to progression for all patients was 51.2 months and

88 Median time to progression for cisplatin/pemetrexed was 4.9 mon

89 Median time to progression for responders was 38 months.

90 The median time to progression for the 59 patients who progressed w

91 here was no significant difference in median time to progression for the patients with low versus hig

92 nts, as well as time to first metastasis and time to progression for trials in the nonmetastatic CRPC

93 ere was no difference in overall survival or time to progression; for prinomastat versus placebo pati

94 agnetic resonance imaging to predict shorter time-to-progression from mild cognitive impairment to Al

95 myeloma patients showed significantly longer time to progression, higher response rate, and improved

96 deprivation (CAD) have superior survival and time to progression if lower castrate levels of testoste

97 roni-corrected P = .016), as well as shorter time to progression in bortezomib-treated patients (P =

98 Median time to progression in BPI-SF pain at its worst was 5.7

99 ont dual inhibition of TRK and MEK may delay time to progression in cancer types prone to the genomic

100 Kaplan-Meier estimates of median time to progression in days indicated that patients with

101 rogressed and were associated with a shorter time to progression in our cohort.

102 ion MR imaging can be used to predict median time to progression in patients with gliomas, independen

103 rrations in terms of frequency and impact on time to progression in patients with smoldering multiple

104 une-related genes was correlated with longer time to progression in recurrent ependymoma.

105 The hazard ratio for time to progression in responders compared with nonrespo

106 ion-free survival was 9.3 months, and median time to progression in the liver was 12.3 months.

107 Median time to progression in the prior bevacizumab and bevaciz

108 The time to progression in these patients ranged from 38 to

109 ped achieved a 2-fold to 10-fold increase in time to progression in tumor models.

110 Median time to progression is 13.5 months.

111 Patients with short time-to-progression (<2 years) had either low levels of

112 Patients receiving len/dex had longer time to progression (median, 27.4 vs 17.2 months; P = .0

113 Patients with sCR displayed slightly longer time to progression (median, 62 vs 53 months, respective

114 Secondary end points included time to progression, median progression-free survival (P

115 H and TCH in terms of the primary end point, time to progression (medians of 11.1 and 10.4 months, re

116 The interim analysis of time to progression met specified criteria for early rep

117 Administered dose, response rate, time-to-progression (modified Response Evaluation Criter

118 Response rate, time to progression, MS, and 1-year OS rates for CG and

119 ase control-progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate, and durati

120 e uniformity was an independent predictor of time to progression (odds ratio, 4.02; 95% confidence in

121 cluded recurrent FL and prior rituximab with time to progression of >/= 6 months from last dose.

122 ere EDSS score progression (masked assessor, time to progression of >/=1 point from a baseline score

123 43 have progressed to myeloma, with a median time to progression of 1.8 years.

124 idence interval [CI], 2%-30%), with a median time to progression of 12 weeks (interquartile range [IQ

125 ients ranged from 38 to 420 days with a mean time to progression of 136 days.

126 erved: 1 unconfirmed partial response with a time to progression of 23 weeks and 24 patients with sta

127 ith relative CBV more than 1.75 had a median time to progression of 245 days +/- 62.

128 -negative SBP patients evolved to MM (median time to progression of 26 months vs not reached; hazard

129 with a relative CBV of more than 1.75 had a time to progression of 265 days.

130 relative CBV of less than 1.75 had a median time to progression of 3585 days, whereas patients with

131 tment cycles in 108 patients showed a 5-year time to progression of 41.7% (95% CI 22.2-60.1) in patie

132 ith relative CBV less than 1.75 had a median time to progression of 4620 days +/- 433 (standard devia

133 sing overall response rate of 36% and median time to progression of 8.5 (6.0, 38.7) mo and overall su

134 Recently, time to progression of disease at 24 months (POD24) was

135 ly of the prognostic index, or could predict time to progression of KS.

136 Median time to progression of mean pain intensity was longer in

137 , 95% CI 0.67-1.00; p=0.0490), as was median time to progression of pain interference with daily acti

138 Time to progression of PDR and VH were calculated with C

139 e objective clinical response, toxicity, and time to progression of treatment with 9-Nitro-Camptothec

140 Median time to progression of worst pain was also longer with a

141 er genes, SLCO2B1 and SLCO1B3, may determine time to progression on ADT.

142 domisation, stratified by geographic region, time to progression on first-line therapy, and disease m

143 Patients were stratified by ancestry, time to progression on penultimate platinum, and respons

144 ractive voice response system, stratified by time to progression on penultimate platinum-based regime

145 s were significantly associated with shorter time to progression or PeSCCA-specific survival.

146 Median time to progression or recurrence for patients in cohort

147 oint was to demonstrate a 50% improvement in time to progression over historical values.

148 esponse, with secondary end points including time to progression, overall survival, and correlation o

149 bicin monotherapy resulted in greater median time to progression, overall survival, and progression-f

150 Secondary end points included time to progression, overall survival, and safety.

151 ncluded objective response in non-CNS sites, time to progression, overall survival, and toxicity.

152 ic anticoagulation (overall survival P = .7, time to progression P = .1).

153 icantly affect overall survival (P = .90) or time to progression (P = .34).

154 d IL-12p70 levels positively correlated with time to progression (P = 0.019, log-rank), as did T-cyto

155 only, hippocampal atrophy predicted shorter time-to-progression (P < 0.001) while Abeta load did not

156 The regimen maintains a long time to progression, preserving vision while minimizing

157 Median time to progression (primary end point) was significantl

158 With a median follow-up of 137 weeks, time to progression, progression-free survival, and over

159 objectives included safety and tolerability, time to progression, progression-free survival, and over

160 improved the rate of complete remission, and time to progression, progression-free survival, and over

161 The secondary end points were time to progression, progression-free survival, conversi

162 ter B-cell-like DLBCL (log-rank P < .001 for time to progression, progression-free survival, disease-

163 umors), median survival increased by 36% and time to progression/progression-free survival increased

164 The primary outcome was time to progression; progression was defined as PSA leve

165 pared with DHITsig-negative patients (5-year time to progression rate, 57% and 81%, respectively; P <

166 ated that lenalidomide consolidation extends time to progression requiring salvage therapy.

167 riginal protocol but instead was added after time-to-progression results were analyzed, and that not

168 Secondary end points were time to progression, safety, and tolerability.

169 CBV (>1.75) have a significantly more rapid time to progression than do patients who have gliomas wi

170 s on CT at 2 months had significantly longer time to progression than those who did not respond (P =

171 time of KS diagnosis did not have a shorter time to progression than those who were antiretroviral n

172 rtezomib had higher response rates, a longer time to progression (the primary end point), and a longe

173 The primary endpoint was time to progression (time of progressive disease or deat

174 tments for patients with MDS, increasing the time to progression to acute myelogenous leukemia and im

175 The median time to progression to ESRF from onset of AA amyloidosis

176 riate Cox proportional hazards analyses with time to progression to HGD and EAC were performed.

177 The primary end point was time to progression to symptomatic disease.

178 The primary outcome was time-to-progression to Alzheimer's dementia.

179 Secondary end points were time to progression, toxicity, and quality of life.

180 e-free survival as the primary end point and time to progression, toxicity, disease-specific survival

181 tus was an independent prognostic factor for time to progression (TTP) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; P = .

182 lly focus on time to first treatment (TTFT), time to progression (TTP) after treatment, and overall s

183 ods were used to assess the relation between time to progression (TTP) and individual gene expression

184 Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (O

185 The 5-year time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) for

186 ponse to HDT-ASCT leads to an improvement in time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS).

187 aseline to first follow-up was compared with time to progression (TTP) by using a Cox proportional ha

188 We hypothesize time to progression (TTP) could be increased by integrat

189 were significantly (P < .01) associated with time to progression (TTP) during ADT, remaining so in mu

190 The median time to progression (TTP) from ASCT of patients achievin

191 The primary end point was time to progression (TTP) from randomization.

192 Time to progression (TTP) increased from 4.5 months with

193 risk groups: a high-risk group with a median time to progression (TTP) of 1.8 years, an intermediate-

194 of 50 patients have progressed with a median time to progression (TTP) of 18 months.

195 Three SNPs in SLCO2B1 were associated with time to progression (TTP) on ADT (P < .05).

196 ly 40% for patients with neither; the median time to progression (TTP) was 10.47 versus 3.46 years (P

197 The median time to progression (TTP) was 11.3 months, and the media

198 Median time to progression (TTP) was 18.4 and median survival (

199 Investigator-assessed median time to progression (TTP) was 4.2 months, and median ove

200 nfirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10

201 Time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer for f

202 Time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer with

203 Time to progression (TTP) was the primary efficacy end p

204 Response rate and time to progression (TTP) were determined using World He

205 To compare time to progression (TTP) with a steroidal aromatase inh

206 aboratory toxicity levels, imaging response, time to progression (TTP), 90-day mortality, and surviva

207 e plus partial response plus stable disease) time to progression (TTP), and KIT genotyping.

208 objective of determining the response rate, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS) amo

209 OX expression with time to metastasis (TTM), time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS).

210 o higher overall response rate (ORR), longer time to progression (TTP), and progression-free survival

211 -free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), and safety were assessed.

212 assessed by tumor volume measurements (CT), time to progression (TTP), and survival.

213 dary end points were time to response (TTR), time to progression (TTP), duration of response (DOR), a

214 estingly, there was a striking difference in time to progression (TTP), duration of response, and ove

215 The primary outcome was time to progression (TTP), evaluated by intention-to-tre

216 ) was the primary end point; others included time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and to

217 esponse rate (RR); secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), overall survival, and toxicit

218 as overall survival; secondary outcomes were time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PF

219 survival (OS) and secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), response rate (RR), progressi

220 Secondary and tertiary end points included time to progression (TTP), response rate, and overall su

221 Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), response rate, and overall su

222 d points include radiographic response rate, time to progression (TTP), toxicity, and symptom improve

223 y end points included overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), VEGF levels, and molecular st

224 and CHL patients (75% vs 73%; P = .610), the time to progression (TTP), which also includes the devel

225 The primary end point was time to progression (TTP).

226 rmine response rates (size and necrosis) and time to progression (TTP).

227 bo were assessed for survival, response, and time to progression (TTP).

228 early changes as a predictor of response and time to progression (TTP).

229 control rate (DCR, 56.5% v 33.3%; P = .04), time to progression (TTP, 9.05 v 2.7 months; P = .02), a

230 ponse rates (RR; 28% v 15.5%; P = .0009) and time to progression (TTP; 6.2 v 4.4 months; P = .0009) w

231 all and complete response rates (P < .0001), time to progression (TTP; P < .0001), response duration

232 /mL at enrollment had a significantly longer time to progression (TTP; P = .0004).

233 this patient population and to determine the time-to-progression (TTP) and time-to-subsequent-chemoth

234 In this report, we update survival (OS) and time-to-progression (TTP) data for the Intergroup trial

235 fter a median follow-up of 66 months, median time-to-progression (TTP) was 55 months and median progr

236 e response rate, duration of response (DOR), time-to-progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and sa

237 tion of AFP response to radiologic response, time-to-progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PF

238 included progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-progression (TTP).

239 Primary end point was time-to-progression (TTP).

240 s the primary endpoint, efficacy of Y90RE on time-to-progression (TTP).

241 There were no significant differences in time to progression (unadjusted hazards ratio, 0.96 [95%

242 hazard ratio for the independently assessed time to progression was 0.49 (95% confidence interval, 0

243 The 2-year time to progression was 0.59, and for patients who compl

244 Median time to progression was 1.0 year (95% confidence interva

245 At the median follow-up of 2.5 years, median time to progression was 1.1 year for lenalidomide alone

246 Median time to progression was 1.5 months in arm A and 4.0 mont

247 The median time to progression was 10 months and the 2-year surviva

248 The median time to progression was 11.1 months in the lenalidomide

249 a median follow-up of 64 months, the median time to progression was 14.5 months.

250 The median time to progression was 152 days (mean, 380.1 days, 95%

251 The median time to progression was 16.4 months (95% CI, 11.4 to 21.

252 After median follow-up of 29 months, median time to progression was 17.3 months.

253 The median time to progression was 18.3 months, and the median over

254 Median time to progression was 2.0 months; overall survival tim

255 Median time to progression was 2.07 years (95% CI 1.96-2.17), g

256 Median time to progression was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.2 m

257 The median time to progression was 20 months, significantly longer

258 Median time to progression was 24 months (95% CI, 18 to 39 mont

259 Median time to progression was 3 months, and median survival ti

260 Median time to progression was 3.3 months.

261 Median time to progression was 39 months (IQR 22-69) for those

262 The median time to progression was 4.4 months (95% CI, 0.8 to 32.6+

263 The mean time to progression was 4.6 times longer for lesions wit

264 The median time to progression was 46 months in the lenalidomide gr

265 The median time to progression was 47 weeks (95% CI 34-not reached)

266 of 40 patients; 95% CI, 16% to 44%), median time to progression was 5 months (95% CI, 3 to 8 months)

267 a median follow-up of 19 months, the median time to progression was 5 months, median survival was 11

268 Median time to progression was 5 years.

269 Median time to progression was 5.9 months for DCF and 5.0 month

270 The overall median time to progression was 52 d (95% confidence interval, 4

271 The median time to progression was 57.3 months (95% CI 44.2-73.3) f

272 events for progression-free survival, median time to progression was 6.4 months in the sorafenib-doxo

273 The median time to progression was 6.7 months, and overall median s

274 8.5% (two partial, two complete), and median time to progression was 7.3 months.

275 Median time to progression was 7.7 months (in all patients).

276 Median time to progression was 8 weeks.

277 th a median follow-up of 12.2 months, median time to progression was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 9.9 m

278 Median time to progression was 8.3 months (range, 2.1 to 63+) a

279 was 13.1 months and not reached, and median time to progression was 8.3 months and not reached, resp

280 The median time to progression was 8.4 months in the combination-th

281 Median time to progression was 80 months.

282 Median time to progression was 9.46 months.

283 Median time to progression was 9.9, 8.0, and 8.3 weeks for chor

284 rameters and standard criteria with measured time to progression was assessed by using Kaplan-Meier a

285 Median time to progression was increased from 6.5 months for bo

286 median of 16.4 months follow-up, the median time to progression was not reached for patients in the

287 ling in RAS-induced tumorigenesis, decreased time to progression was observed for some KRAS-mutant tu

288 HCC, no radiographic responses were seen and time to progression was short, which suggests minimal si

289 n follow-up of 31 months (IQR 19-42), median time to progression was significantly longer in the salv

290 a median follow-up of 40 months, the median time to progression was significantly longer in the trea

291 The median time to progression was similar between the two treatmen

292 Time to progression was slightly but statistically longe

293 Although time-to-progression was longer following radioembolizati

294 an progression-free survival (PFS), DoR, and time to progression were 30.2, 38.4, and 36.9 months, re

295 response to treatment (overall survival and time to progression) were evaluated using a Cox proporti

296 le and promising objective response rate and time to progression when used as part of a transarterial

297 Time to progression with OFF (2.9 months; 95% CI, 2.4 to

298 such patterns differentiated short from long time-to-progression with 90% (27/30) sensitivity and 80%

299 pal atrophy and Abeta load predicted shorter time-to-progression with comparable power (hazard ratio

300 The primary comparison was time to progression, with secondary end points of respon