Home > Publications database > Erstellung einer Input-Output-Tabelle für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern > print

001     11439
005     20180208202920.0
024 7 _ |2 pmid
|a pmid:17409969
024 7 _ |2 DOI
|a 10.1007/s11943-010-0084-9
037 _ _ |a PreJuSER-11439
041 _ _ |a eng
082 _ _ |a 310
100 1 _ |a Kronenberg, T.
|b 0
|u FZJ
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)VDB66835
245 _ _ |a Erstellung einer Input-Output-Tabelle für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
260 _ _ |a Berlin
|b Springer
|c 2010
300 _ _ |a 223 - 248
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
440 _ 0 |a AStA Wirtschafts-und Sozialstatistisches Archiv
|x 1863-8155
|0 22961
|y 3
|v 4
500 _ _ |a Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012
520 _ _ |a The IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer (ISEL) phase III study compared the efficacy of gefitinib (IRESSA) versus placebo in patients with refractory advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although a statistically significant difference in survival was not seen between gefitinib and placebo in the overall ISEL population, preplanned subset analyses demonstrated a significant survival benefit in patients who had never smoked and in patients of Asian origin.In ISEL, 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy were randomized to receive either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Preplanned subgroup analyses included an assessment of patients who were of Asian origin (n = 342).Two hundred thirty-five patients of Asian origin received gefitinib, and 107 received placebo. In these patients, treatment with gefitinib significantly improved survival compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48, 0.91; p = 0.010; median survival, 9.5 versus 5.5 months). Patients of Asian origin also experienced statistically significant improvements in time to treatment failure with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52, 0.91; p = 0.0084; 4.4 versus 2.2 months), and objective response rates were higher with gefitinib than with placebo (12 versus 2%). Gefitinib was generally well tolerated in patients of Asian origin, with rash and diarrhea being the most common adverse events. No unexpected adverse events were observed.Treatment with gefitinib was associated with a significant improvement in survival in a subgroup of patients of Asian origin with previously treated refractory advanced NSCLC.
536 _ _ |a Nachhaltige Entwicklung und Technik
|c P26
|2 G:(DE-HGF)
|0 G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK408
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to Pubmed
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Adult
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Aged
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Aged, 80 and over
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Antineoplastic Agents: adverse effects
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Antineoplastic Agents: therapeutic use
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Asian Continental Ancestry Group
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung: drug therapy
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung: ethnology
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung: mortality
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Double-Blind Method
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Female
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Humans
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Lung Neoplasms: drug therapy
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Lung Neoplasms: ethnology
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Lung Neoplasms: mortality
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Male
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Middle Aged
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Protein Kinase Inhibitors: adverse effects
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Protein Kinase Inhibitors: therapeutic use
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Quinazolines: adverse effects
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Quinazolines: therapeutic use
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Receptor, Epidermal Growth Factor: antagonists & inhibitors
650 _ 2 |2 MeSH
|a Survival Rate
650 _ 7 |0 0
|2 NLM Chemicals
|a Antineoplastic Agents
650 _ 7 |0 0
|2 NLM Chemicals
|a Protein Kinase Inhibitors
650 _ 7 |0 0
|2 NLM Chemicals
|a Quinazolines
650 _ 7 |0 184475-35-2
|2 NLM Chemicals
|a gefitinib
650 _ 7 |0 EC 2.7.10.1
|2 NLM Chemicals
|a Receptor, Epidermal Growth Factor
773 _ _ |a 10.1007/s11943-010-0084-9
|g Vol. 4, p. 223 - 248
|p 223 - 248
|q 4<223 - 248
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2375523-4
|t Wirtschafts- und sozialstatistisches Archiv
|v 4
|y 2010
|x 1863-8155
856 7 _ |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11943-010-0084-9
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:11439
|p VDB
913 1 _ |k P26
|v Nachhaltige Entwicklung und Technik
|l Nachhaltige Entwicklung und Technik
|b Umwelt
|z fortgesetzt als P47
|0 G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK408
|x 0
913 2 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Forschungsbereich Energie
|l Technologie, Innovation und Gesellschaft
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-150
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-153
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-100
|v Assessment of Energy Systems Addressing Issues of Energy Efficiency and Energy Security
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2010
915 _ _ |0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|a Peer review
920 1 _ |k IEF-STE
|l Systemforschung und Technologische Entwicklung
|d 30.09.2010
|g IEF
|0 I:(DE-Juel1)VDB815
|x 0
970 _ _ |a VDB:(DE-Juel1)122553
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a ConvertedRecord
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
981 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013
981 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)VDB815

LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21