Tibor Csöszi
YOU?
Author Swipe
View article: Transcriptomic Predictors of Survival for Palbociclib + Endocrine Therapy Versus Capecitabine in Aromatase Inhibitor-Resistant Breast Cancer From the GEICAM/2013-02 PEARL Trial.
Transcriptomic Predictors of Survival for Palbociclib + Endocrine Therapy Versus Capecitabine in Aromatase Inhibitor-Resistant Breast Cancer From the GEICAM/2013-02 PEARL Trial. Open
PURPOSE: For hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), first-line cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard of ca…
View article: Supplementary Figure S3 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Figure S3 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Figure 3. Survival analysis in baseline population (C1D1) on TP53 mutations, within the population with any detectable mutation (n=146).
View article: Supplementary Table S1 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S1 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 1. List of the 21 genes included in the breast cancer panel used for sequencing, and the targeted coding regions in each case.
View article: Supplementary Table S4 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S4 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 4. Baseline characteristics comparison between our selected study population and the overall PEARL population.
View article: Supplementary Table S12 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S12 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 12. Baseline genomic landscape of mutations distribution for the CDR population (n=120), by number of mutations or presence/absence, across treatment arms.
View article: Supplementary Table S2 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S2 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 2. Complete table results for all patients (n=201) involved in baseline (C1D1) analysis.
View article: Supplementary Figure S1 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Figure S1 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Figure 1. Survival analysis in baseline population (C1D1).
View article: Supplementary Table S5 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S5 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 5. Baseline characteristics comparison between treatment arms in the selected study population
View article: Supplementary Figure S5 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Figure S5 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Figure 5. CDR and clinical benefit rate within the longitudinal predictive ctDNA analysis.
View article: Supplementary Table S8 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S8 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 8. Summary of baseline ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, with number of affected patients and mean VAF.
View article: Supplementary Figure S4 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Figure S4 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Figure 4. OS analysis in baseline population (C1D1) on ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, within the population with any detectable mutation (N=146).
View article: Supplementary Table S3 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S3 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 3. Complete table results for all patients (n=120) involved in C1D15 analysis.
View article: Supplementary Table S9 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S9 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 9. Summary of PFS results for ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations. Cox regression univariate and multivariate analysis.
View article: Supplementary Table S6 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S6 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 6. Summary of all baseline mutations identified for the 146 patients with ctDNA detection.
View article: Supplementary Table S7 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S7 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 7. Baseline genomic landscape of mutations distribution in population, by number of mutations or presence/absence, across treatment arms.
View article: Supplementary Figure S2 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Figure S2 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Figure 2. PFS analysis in baseline population (C1D1) on TP53 mutations, by treatment arms.
View article: Supplementary Table S13 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients
Supplementary Table S13 from Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Open
Supplementary Table 13. Alternative methodologies used for the calculation of CDR and PFS predictions.
View article: 564 A phase 2 study of ateganosine (THIO) in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in patients with advanced NSCLC resistant to prior ICI and chemotherapy: THIO-101 trial in progress
564 A phase 2 study of ateganosine (THIO) in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in patients with advanced NSCLC resistant to prior ICI and chemotherapy: THIO-101 trial in progress Open
View article: 563 A phase 3 study of ateganosine (THIO) sequenced with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) versus standard of care chemotherapy in ICI-resistant advanced NSCLC: THIO-104 trial in progress
563 A phase 3 study of ateganosine (THIO) sequenced with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) versus standard of care chemotherapy in ICI-resistant advanced NSCLC: THIO-104 trial in progress Open
View article: Transcriptomic Predictors of Survival for Palbociclib + Endocrine Therapy Versus Capecitabine in Aromatase Inhibitor–Resistant Breast Cancer From the GEICAM/2013-02 PEARL Trial
Transcriptomic Predictors of Survival for Palbociclib + Endocrine Therapy Versus Capecitabine in Aromatase Inhibitor–Resistant Breast Cancer From the GEICAM/2013-02 PEARL Trial Open
PURPOSE For hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), first-line cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard of car…
View article: Five-Year Survival Outcomes With Atezolizumab After Chemotherapy in Resected Stage IB-IIIA Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (IMpower010): An Open-Label, Randomized, Phase III Trial
Five-Year Survival Outcomes With Atezolizumab After Chemotherapy in Resected Stage IB-IIIA Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (IMpower010): An Open-Label, Randomized, Phase III Trial Open
IMpower010 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02486718 ) previously showed that atezolizumab improved disease-free survival (DFS) versus best supportive care (BSC) after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected non–small cell lung c…
View article: A plain language summary of the preliminary results for encorafenib plus binimetinib and pembrolizumab in adults with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma in the STARBOARD study
A plain language summary of the preliminary results for encorafenib plus binimetinib and pembrolizumab in adults with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma in the STARBOARD study Open
What is this summary about? This summary describes the initial phase of the STARBOARD study, known as a safety lead-in, which was conducted to compare the safety of two different encorafenib doses plus binimetinib and pembrolizumab in peop…
View article: 325P Net treatment benefit (NTB) from either endocrine therapy plus palbociclib (ET/P) or capecitabine (C) in GEICAM/2013-02_PEARL, a phase III trial in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer
325P Net treatment benefit (NTB) from either endocrine therapy plus palbociclib (ET/P) or capecitabine (C) in GEICAM/2013-02_PEARL, a phase III trial in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer Open
View article: Supplementary Figure S4 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Supplementary Figure S4 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Open
Supplementary Figure 4. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival by dual TMB and PD-L1 CPS cutoffs for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. A, PFS. B, OS.
View article: Supplementary Figure S1 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Supplementary Figure S1 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Open
Supplementary Figure 1. OncoPrint showing biomarker distribution and most frequently mutated genes.
View article: Supplementary Table S1 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Supplementary Table S1 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Open
Supplementary Table 1. Representativeness of study participants.
View article: Supplementary Figure S3 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Supplementary Figure S3 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Open
Supplementary Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival by dual TMB and PD-L1 CPS cutoffs for pembrolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy. A, PFS. B, OS.
View article: Supplementary Figure S2 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Supplementary Figure S2 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Open
Supplementary Figure 2. Joint effect of TMB and PD-L1 CPS on ORR by treatment arm
View article: Data from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Data from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Open
Purpose:The three-arm, phase III KEYNOTE-361 study did not meet its dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in advanced urotheli…
View article: Supplementary Table S2 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Supplementary Table S2 from Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Open
Supplementary Table 2. Baseline characteristics for the evaluable TMB population