Log rank P =0.0 1 two 3 four 5 six 7 eight 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MonthMedian estimated TWEAK/TNFSF12 Protein custom synthesis general survival time (80 CI): Higher rilotumumab
Log rank P =0.0 1 2 three four 5 6 7 eight 9 ten 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MonthMedian estimated general survival time (80 CI): Higher rilotumumab exposure (n =41) 13.2 (10.6sirtuininhibitor4.3) Low rilotumumab exposure (n =40) 9.five (7.5sirtuininhibitor1.1) Placebo (n =39) eight.9 (five.7sirtuininhibitor0.six) Log rank P=0.BRITISH SARS-CoV-2 S Trimer (Biotinylated Protein custom synthesis JOURNAL OF CANCERMET subgroup PFS MET adverse High exposure group 13 0.73 (0.30sirtuininhibitor.77) Rilotumumab exposure groupRilotumumab exposure-response analysis in gastric cancerInteraction P valuenHR (95 CI)P value0.Low exposure group2.03 (0.75sirtuininhibitor.49)0.MET positiveHigh exposure group0.33 (0.15sirtuininhibitor.72)0.0.Low exposure group0.60 (0.30sirtuininhibitor.17)0.0.OS MET damaging High exposure group 13 1.19 (0.49sirtuininhibitor.88) 0.Low exposure group MET positive1.29 (0.50sirtuininhibitor.35)0.High exposure group0.32 (0.15sirtuininhibitor.70)0.0.Low exposure group0.64 (0.32sirtuininhibitor.29)0.0.194 Favors rilotumumab + ECX 0.1 1 Favors placebo + ECXFigure 2. Forest plots for progression-free survival (PFS) and all round survival (OS) with respect to low and higher rilotumumab exposure and constructive and damaging tumour MET expression. Low rilotumumab exposure was defined as Cminsso94 mg ml sirtuininhibitor1, and high rilotumumab exposure was defined as CminssX94 mg ml sirtuininhibitor1. MET positivity was defined as X25 membranous staining of tumour cells at any intensity, and MET negativity was defined as o25 membranous staining. CI, self-confidence interval; ECX, epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine; HR, hazard ratio.A1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.five 0.four 0.3 0.two 0.1 0.0 0Median estimated progression-free survival time (80 CI): MET-positive + rilotumumab 15 mg kgsirtuininhibitor (n =16) five.1 (three.9sirtuininhibitor.0) MET-positive + rilotumumab 7.five mg kgsirtuininhibitor (n =25) six.9 (five.6sirtuininhibitor.5) MET-positive + placebo (n =17) 4.four (2.9sirtuininhibitor.9) Log rank P = 0.B1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.six 0.5 0.four 0.3 0.two 0.1 0.0 0 2 4Median estimated general survival time (80 CI): MET-positive + rilotumumab 15 mg kgsirtuininhibitor (n =16) 9.7 (7.7sirtuininhibitor3.four) MET-positive + rilotumumab 7.five mg kgsirtuininhibitor (n =25) 11.1 (9.2sirtuininhibitor2.0) MET-positive + placebo (n =17) 5.7 (four.7, 10.two) Log rank P = 0.Survival probabilitySurvival probability10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Month8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 MonthMedian estimated overall survival time (80 CI): MET-negative + rilotumumab 15 mg kgsirtuininhibitor (n =13) 11.1 (6.9sirtuininhibitor3.3) MET-negative + rilotumumab 7.five mg kgsirtuininhibitor (n =9) 12.1 (9.2sirtuininhibitor3.two)C1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.four 0.three 0.2 0.1 0.0 0Median estimated progression-free survival time (80 CI): MET-negative + rilotumumab 15 mg kgsirtuininhibitor (n =13) 5.three (2.8sirtuininhibitor.7) MET-negative + rilotumumab 7.5 mg kgsirtuininhibitor (n =9) four.0 (3.0sirtuininhibitor.0) MET-negative + placebo (n =11) five.four (four.1sirtuininhibitor.six) Log rank P = 0.D1.0 0.9 0.eight 0.7 0.six 0.five 0.four 0.3 0.two 0.1 0.0 0 two 4MET-negative + placebo (n =11) 11.5 (eight.5sirtuininhibitor9.five) Log rank P = 0.Survival probabilitySurvival probability10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Month8 ten 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 MonthFigure 3. Kaplan eier evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) and general survival (OS). PFS is shown in a and C. OS is shown in B and D. PFS and OS have been examined primarily based on rilotumumab dose in the MET-positive (A, B) and MET-negative subgroups (C, D). MET positivity was defined as X25 membra.