Figure 2
Figure 2. Applying the GEP80 model developed from the 48-hour post-Bz setting to baseline expression levels to divide patients into high- and low-risk groups. (A) Superior PFS (left) and OS (right) were noted in the low-risk group when applied to the training set of 142 patients receiving TT3A (UARK2003-33). (B) Superior PFS (left) and OS (right) were confirmed in the low-risk group when applied to the test set of 128 patients receiving TT3B (UARK2006-66). (C) Superior PFS (left) and OS (right) were noted in the low-risk group when applied to all 351 patients with GEP data before starting TT2 (UARK98-026, both arms combined). (D) Superior PFS (left) and OS (right) were also noted in the low-risk group (GEP80(BL)–L) compared with the high-risk group (GEP80(BL)–H) when examined separately by control arm (Thal−; P = .03 and .0002, respectively) and experimental arm (Thal+) in the TT2 protocol (P = .04 and .007, respectively).

Applying the GEP80 model developed from the 48-hour post-Bz setting to baseline expression levels to divide patients into high- and low-risk groups. (A) Superior PFS (left) and OS (right) were noted in the low-risk group when applied to the training set of 142 patients receiving TT3A (UARK2003-33). (B) Superior PFS (left) and OS (right) were confirmed in the low-risk group when applied to the test set of 128 patients receiving TT3B (UARK2006-66). (C) Superior PFS (left) and OS (right) were noted in the low-risk group when applied to all 351 patients with GEP data before starting TT2 (UARK98-026, both arms combined). (D) Superior PFS (left) and OS (right) were also noted in the low-risk group (GEP80(BL)–L) compared with the high-risk group (GEP80(BL)–H) when examined separately by control arm (Thal; P = .03 and .0002, respectively) and experimental arm (Thal+) in the TT2 protocol (P = .04 and .007, respectively).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal