Search results for "PULMONARY"
showing 10 items of 3030 documents
P33.15 TMB in the First-Line Setting of NSCLC: A Systematic Review with Indirect Comparisons Between PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitors
2021
P2.04-11 An IL-8/IFN-gammma/NLR Plasma Score to Predict Nivolumab Efficacy in Patients with NSCLC
2018
P48.10 Chemo-Immunotherapy in the Frontline of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Indirect Comparisons
2021
P07.02 Detection of Molecular Residual Disease (MRD) using ctDNA in NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2021
189TiP Phase IV trial of afatinib followed by osimertinib versus osimertinib alone as first-line treatment in patients (pts) with advanced EGFR mutat…
2021
Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury after TAVI by New Biomarkers
2018
167P Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and treatment efficacy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC): A pooled analysis of 6 randomized trials
2021
C1-02: Randomized Phase II study of vandetanib alone or in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel as 1st-line treatment for advanced NSCLC
2007
Outcomes of Patients With Advanced NSCLC From the Intergroupe Francophone de Cancérologie Thoracique Biomarkers France Study by KRAS Mutation Subtypes
2020
Abstract Introduction KRAS mutations are detected in 20% to 30% of NSCLC. However, KRAS mutation subtypes may differently influence the outcome of patients with advanced NSCLC. Methods In the Biomarkers France study, 4894 KRAS mutations (26.2%) were detected in 4634 patients from the 17,664 enrolled patients with NSCLC. Survival and treatment data on noncurative stage III to IV NSCLC were available for 901 patients. First- and second-line treatment effects on progression-free survival and overall survival were analyzed according to the KRAS mutations subtype. Results Over 95% of patients with KRAS mutation were smokers or former smokers who were white (99.5%), presenting with adenocarcinoma…
Doing Science: Peer reviewing
2014
External peer review is a hallmark of science. “Published in a peer-reviewed journal” is a sign of quality, meaning that the work has been scrutinised by knowledgeable and independent peers. Moreover, peer review also serves the purpose of improving the work after the authors have done their best and, thus, being a reviewer carries a responsibility. However, it comes with little reward; reviewing is usually done without financial compensation and often outside of work hours. But reviewing is rewarding in itself! Besides being pro bono , it exposes you, as a reviewer, to novel findings and adds a new perspective to your own research and scientific writing. And you can add “Peer reviewer for …