Figure 1. (A) Forest plot of common odds ratios (adjusted for ECOG PS) for best overall response by a priori subgroups in patients with KRAS wild-type.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

*University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium

Advertisements

KRAS status and efficacy in the first- line treatment of patients with mCRC treated with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: The OPUS experience Carsten.

Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the influence of KRAS and BRAF biomarkers on outcome: updated data from the CRYSTAL.

Fig. 3. Plot of overall survival by adjuvant therapy for patient subgroups. (A) Patients with M0 disease (n = 411). (B) Patients receiving 36 Gy craniospinal.

Figure 2. Quality of life (QOL) scores for functional scale items

Figure 1. FinHER dataset: distribution of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer according to the (A) three breast cancer subtypes and (B) HER2.

Figure 1. Dose modification scheme for the second cycle of capecitabine treatment. From: Adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy using a tailored-dose strategy.

An Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized, Phase II Study of Cisplatin and Pemetrexed With or Without Cixutumumab (IMC-A12) as a First-Line Therapy in Patients.

Copyright © 2010 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Emerging treatment strategies in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: Focus on trabectedin Andrés Poveda, Isabelle Ray-Coquard, Ignacio Romero,

Bayesian network meta-comparison of maintenance treatments for stage IIIb/IV nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with good performance status.

Distinct Epidemiology and Clinical Consequence of Classic Versus Rare EGFR Mutations in Lung Adenocarcinoma Zoltan Lohinai, MD, Mir Alireza Hoda, MD,

Figure 1 (A) Chest computed tomography scans of the patient

Figure 2. (A) Sézary syndrome patient before treatment

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis in patients

Figure 1. Overall survival of patients receiving alternative medicine (solid lines) vs conventional cancer treatment (dashed lines). Overall survival of.

Figure 1. Nonadherence to guidelines for prescribing antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in 144 patients with atrial fibrillation who attend a Spanish.

Figure 2. A consort diagram showing the flowchart of the trial

Fig. 1 Selection of patients

Figure 3. Visualisation of ESMO-MCB scores for curative and non-curative setting. A & B and 5 and 4 represent the grades with substantial improvement.

Figure 1. Dosage and administration route of drugs used in the BMD study. Each cycle was proposed every 28 days (‘base’ schedule) or 35 days (‘weekly’

Figure 2 Comparison of pregnancy outcomes between true NC-FET and modified NC-FET. Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for clinical pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73–1.12)

CLINICAL AND BUDGET IMPACT OF USING A MOLECULAR TEST TO DETECT KRAS MUTATIONS IN METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER PATIENTS IN THE UNITED STATES Cheng I1, Hertz.

Figure 1. (A) Cumulative risk of breast (diamonds) and ovarian (squares) cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. (B) Cumulative risk of breast (diamonds) and.

Figure 1. Trial profile. From: Efficacy of high-dose alkylating chemotherapy in HER2/neu-negative breast cancer Ann Oncol. 2006;17(4): doi: /annonc/mdl001.

Treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer – Beyond first and second line combination therapies A. Vogel, R.D. Hofheinz, S. Kubicka, D. Arnold

Figure 1. Progression-free survival and overall survival for FL/DLBCL patients. From: Clinicobiological features and prognostic impact of diffuse large.

Figure 1. Patterns of HER2–PET/CT confronted with FDG–PET/CT, Maximum intensity projection. Lesion uptake was considered pertinent when visually higher.

WT G>A G>C G>T (n = 93) (n = 21) (n = 10) (n = 51)

A proposed treatment model for the decision-making process when choosing between cetuximab continuation vs rechallenge. aTypically patients with left-sided,

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter, Biomarker-Selected, Phase 2 Study of Apricoxib in Combination with Erlotinib in Patients with Advanced.

توزیع جغرافیایی مرگ به دلیل بدخیمی در کشور Age-standardized incidence rate of all cancers per 100 000 in female in Iran 2005–2006.

Pooled Analysis of the Prognostic and Predictive Value of KRAS Mutation Status and Mutation Subtype in Patients with Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated.

Clinical marker confirmation using centrally assessed progression-free survival data in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer with non-squamous.

Distinct Epidemiology and Clinical Consequence of Classic Versus Rare EGFR Mutations in Lung Adenocarcinoma Zoltan Lohinai, MD, Mir Alireza Hoda, MD,

Figure 1. Bar plots of age-standardized (world population) death rates per 100 000 persons for the year 2014 (blue, ... Figure 1. Bar plots of age-standardized.

The 10-year cumulative incidence of CRC death or death due to other causes in patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for stages II–III.

A Randomized Phase 2 Study Comparing the Combination of Ficlatuzumab and Gefitinib with Gefitinib Alone in Asian Patients with Advanced Stage Pulmonary.

EGFR TKIs plus WBRT Demonstrated No Survival Benefit Other Than That of TKIs Alone in Patients with NSCLC and EGFR Mutation and Brain Metastases Tao.

Algorithms for the management of metastatic colorectal cancer: (A) resectable metastatic disease; (B) metastatic disease, first-line; (C) metastatic disease,

Kaplan-Maier survival curves of 10-year DFS (A and B) and OS (C and D) according to PS 0 and PS≥1 in patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy after.

Cetuximab with chemotherapy as 1st-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of the CRYSTAL and OPUS studies according to KRAS.

(A) Survival time. (A) Survival time. All patients. (a) PFS since the start of EGFR-TKI (groups A, B and C). (b) OS since the start of EGFR-TKI (groups.

Figure 1 Comparison of MITRA-FR and COAPT trial outcomes

bDMARD: biologic DMARD.

Jessica J. Lin, MD, Stephanie Cardarella, MD, Christine A

Final Overall Survival Results from a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study of Gefitinib Versus Placebo as Maintenance Therapy.

Phase II Randomized Trial of Erlotinib or Vinorelbine in Chemonaive, Advanced, Non- small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Aged 70 Years or Older Yuh-Min Chen,

EGFR Mutations Detected in Plasma Are Associated with Patient Outcomes in Erlotinib Plus Docetaxel-Treated Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Philip C. Mack,

Figure 1. Survival curves from a hypothesized clinical trial randomizing patient to standard of care with and without ... Figure 1. Survival curves from.

Figure 1 Cumulative late adjusted survival in cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator and pacemaker patients. ... Figure 1 Cumulative late adjusted.

Forest plots for all drugs (OS and PFS HRs combined): excellent versus reduced PS comparison and ECOG PS levels comparison (see online supplementary 1). ECOG.

Figure 1. Relationships among microsatellite instability (MSI; letter A indicates the group with MSI), high tumour ... Figure 1. Relationships among microsatellite.

Figure 1. Oncoprint of selected pathogenic alterations detected in ctDNA. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the.

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves derived from data generated under study-specific assumptions. (A) Kaplan–Meier curves ... Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves derived.

Figure 2. Biomarkers for prediction of differences in PFS and objective response rate between GP and GT arm in patients ... Figure 2. Biomarkers for prediction.

Figure 1. Sequential programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-(L)1) blockade and osimertinib schema of patients who developed ... Figure 1. Sequential programmed.

Biomarker Analyses from a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase IIIb Trial Comparing Bevacizumab with or without Erlotinib as Maintenance Therapy for.

Figure S1. A. B. Figure S1. Kaplan-Meier curve of progression-free survival by treatment group in soluble heregulin (HRG)-high population (A) and soluble.

Figure 1. A summary of phase 3 trials for previously untreated advanced/metastatic NSCLC. AEs, adverse events; Beva, ... Figure 1. A summary of phase 3.

Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS (panel A) and OS (panel B) of patients with mTCC receiving an anti-EGFR based therapy. mTCC, metastatic transverse colon cancer;

Figure 1. CONSORT diagram.

Figure 2. Forest plot of multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression illustrating the impact of chemoradiation ... Figure 2. Forest plot of multivariable.

Progression-free (a) and overall (b) survival by age subgroup, Kaplan-Meier plots. Progression-free (a) and overall (b) survival by age subgroup, Kaplan-Meier.

Kaplan–Meier curve for progression-free survival for gefitinib versus doublet chemotherapy in three phase III trials in first-line nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Schema of the exploratory analyses (RAS wild-type population)

Kaplan–Meier curve for progression-free survival for non-Asian patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive status in the INTEREST.

Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival in patients receiving panitumumab→VEGFi (PEAK and PRIME) versus bevacizumab→EGFRi (PEAK and 181) in the (A) RAS.

Figure 1. Forest plot of lung cancer mortality in LDCT trials.

Figure 1. Overall response rates in wild-type versus RAS and RAS/BRAF mutations detected by nanofluidic digital PCR ... Figure 1. Overall response rates.

Presentation transcript:

Figure 1. (A) Forest plot of common odds ratios (adjusted for ECOG PS) for best overall response by a priori subgroups in patients with KRAS wild-type tumors. (B) Forest plot of hazard ratios for progression-free survival time by a priori subgroups in patients with KRAS wild-type tumors. Group A received cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4; Group B received FOLFOX-4 alone. CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; HR, hazard ratio; ITT, intention-to-treat; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; OR, odds ratio. From: Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study Ann Oncol. 2011;22(7):1535-1546. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq632 Ann Oncol | © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Figure 1. (A) Forest plot of common odds ratios (adjusted for ECOG PS) for best overall response by a priori subgroups in patients with KRAS wild-type tumors. (B) Forest plot of hazard ratios for progression-free survival time by a priori subgroups in patients with KRAS wild-type tumors. Group A received cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4; Group B received FOLFOX-4 alone. CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; HR, hazard ratio; ITT, intention-to-treat; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; OR, odds ratio. From: Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study Ann Oncol. 2011;22(7):1535-1546. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq632 Ann Oncol | © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier plots of survival time according to the treatment arm for patients whose tumors were (A) KRAS wild type and (B) KRAS mutant and according to tumor KRAS mutation status for patients receiving (C) cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 (D) FOLFOX-4 alone. Panel (E) shows survival according to the treatment arm and KRAS tumor mutation status for the four subgroups of patients. CI, confidence interval; FOLFOX, FOLFOX-4; HR, hazard ratio; mt, mutant; OS, overall survival; wt, wild type. From: Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study Ann Oncol. 2011;22(7):1535-1546. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq632 Ann Oncol | © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com