View clinical trials related to Progression-free Survival.
Filter by:As the most common subtype of liver cancer (85% ~ 90%), HCC is highly malignant; thus, one of the crucial issues in HCC management is an effective therapy for tumors at an early stage, which is vital for improving the prognosis of patients. For ≤3cm HCC, ablation has been recommended by international guidelines as a first-line or alternative treatment because of similar survival outcomes and milder liver function injury with liver resection (LR). However, the appropriate treatment options for 3-5cm HCC remain controversial. Thus, none of the international guidelines recommend ablation as a first-line treatment for 3-5cm HCC. In the past few decades, treatment for HCC has tended to be less invasive, have fewer complications, and have higher cost-effectiveness. Compared with LR, laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) demonstrates the advancement of minimal invasion. As another minimally invasive technique for HCC, Microwave Ablation (MWA) has the potential to eradicate larger HCCs with larger coagulation areas and is less affected by the heat sink effect caused by vessels around the tumor. Many studies have identified the potential advantages of MWA over other ablation techniques. However, to date, no clinical studies have compared the efficacy of LH and MWA therapies for 3-5cm HCC with periodic progression.
This study involves patients treated with cisplatin and etoposide (induction therapy), followed by treatment with a drug called S1 (maintenance therapy). The main purpose of this study is to determine if this type of treatment will delay the growth of the tumor and if so, for how long. The primary endpoint is progression free survival and second endpoints are toxicities, overall survival.
After standard multimodal therapy, the prognosis of relapsed and unresectable high-grade osteosarcoma is dismal and unchanged over the last decades. We have already finished a prospective trial about apatinib for advanced osteosarcoma(NCT02711007) and find it has a objective response rate of aproximately 45% with median progression-free survival around 5 months. Thus, the investigators explored apatinib activity together with anti-PD1 therapy in order to induce durable response in patients with relapsed and unresectable osteosarcoma after the failure of first-line or second-line chemotherapy. Apatinib is a small-molecule vascular endothelial growth factors receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, similar to pazopanib, but with a binding affinity 10 times to VEGFR-2 comparing with pazopanib or sorafenib. SHR-1210 is a humanized anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody.
Acquired epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation is the most common genetic change after resistant to first generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) in non-small cell lung cancer. After a 10 to 14 months median progression-free survival with the treatment of first generation EGFR TKI, half of patients will get disease progression.For patients progression after treated with first line EGFR TKI and second line double bullets chemotherapy or chemotherapy then EGFR TKI, optimal third line therapy is quite critical important for benefit patients' survival. We conducted this study was aimed to compare the efficacy and toxicity between osimertinib and docetaxel-bevacizumab as the third line therapy in patients with local advanced or metastatic non-squamous cell lung cancer.
Treatment options for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have increased in the last years. However, there are no validated prospective molecular markers in CRC to select which agents are better to treat any individual case. The conventional first-line treatment in CRC patients in clinical studies get a proportion of patients free of progression at 12 months ranging from 35-40% with a median of 9 months of free disease progression. The aim of this study is to demonstrate that the identification of therapeutic targets in real time and their prospectively use to customize the treatment get a proportion of colorectal metastatic patients patients free of progression disease at 12 months of 50%.
A partially-blind, randomised, multicentre phase III trial of Faslodex plus concomitant Arimidex versus Faslodex plus Arimidex-Placebo versus exemestane in postmenopausal locally advanced / metastatic breast cancer patients who have progressed on NSAIs. Randomisation to Faslodex ± Arimidex / Arimidex-Placebo or exemestane will be open (1:1:1). For Faslodex treated patients the randomisation to Arimidex or Arimidex-Placebo will be double-blind.