Compared with the efficacy of navusmand and belavssmone therapy recurrent GBM.

The options for treating recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) are limitedNo treatment currently offers an extension of the patient's total survival (OS)Immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown some efficacy in many types of tumorsNivolumab is an immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody that targets the immune checkpoint receptor of Targeted Procedural Death 1 (PD-1)The phase I results of CheckMate 143 randomized controlled clinical trial confirmed the safety of navusm in recurrent glioblastoma therapyCheckMate 143 III is a study of the effectiveness of the control test ingress of belavonesAnalysis of CheckMate 143 III follow-up data by David AReardon of the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center in Massachusetts found that navusone monotomare single treatment of recurrent glioblastoma did not improve overall survival compared to Bevalsone;research method CheckMate 143 III clinical trial involving medical centers in 57 countries, including 439 patients with glioblastoma who relapsed for the first time after standard radiotherapy and dimozole treatment between September 2014 and May 2015The authors grouped 369 cases randomly to the Navu monosupherine group (184 cases) and the Bevonestad group (185 cases), and used Navuzumab 3mg/kg and Beva sepsinia 10mg/kg, 1 time every 2 weeks, until disease progression, toxic effect or death occurredData collection closes on January 20, 2017; median follow-up time is 9.5 monthsThe main endpoint of the study is the total lifetimethe results of the study, the MGMT initiation of submethylation, the Navu smostalys group of 23.45 (43/184 cases) and the beva smostalys group 22.75 (42/185 cases); Median total lifetime, Navu sabuta 9.8 months (95% CI, 8.2-11.8), Bevalla singh-singdo group 10.0 months (95% CI, 9.0-11.8) (HR s 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.30; P-0.76); The objective response rate of the Bevalla sing-at-singofgroup (ORR s 23.1%; 95% CI, 16.7%-30.5%) was higher than that of navusmreaction group (ORR s 7.8%; 95% CI, 4.1%-13.3%)Similar to treatment-related adverse events (treatment-related adverse events, TRAE) at level 3 or 4 between the two groups, 18.1% (33/182 cases) in the Navu supresa group and 15.2% (25/165 cases) of beva supadThere were no accidental neurological cases of death caused by the nervous system TRAE and TRAE in either groupConclusion Syclathards In summary, the randomized clinical trial did not reach the primary endpoint, but in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, navustamina was comparable to the median total survival of bevasaNavusone did not improve the survival of patients with recurrent glioblastomaThe safety of navusma therapy in patients with glioblastoma is consistent with that of other types of tumorsCopyright Notice The copyright scopyrights published by the God's External Information APP are not limited to the copyrights of the sponsor/original author and outside of God information, and no one may steal any content directly or indirectly by way of adaptation, tailoring, reproduction, reproduction, recording, etcwithout the express authorization of outside informationWorks authorized by outside information should be used within the scope of authorization, please indicate the source: Outside God InformationIn the event of a violation, The Outside Information will reserve the right to further pursue the legal liability of the infringerOutside the God's Information welcomes individuals to forward and share works published under this number