Measurable Disease Sample Clauses

Measurable Disease. Measurable lesions are defined as those that can be accurately measured in at least one dimension (longest diameter to be recorded) as ³ 20 mm with conventional techniques (PET/CT, CT scan, or MRI) or as ³ 10 mm with spiral CT scan with 5 mm cuts. All tumor measurements must be recorded in millimeters (or decimal fractions of centimeters). The same method (CT or MRI) used at baseline should be used at all other tumor measurement time points.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Measurable Disease. Measurable lesions are defined as those that can be accurately measured in at least one dimension (longest diameter to be recorded) as ≥ 20 mm with conventional techniques (PE, CT, XR, MRI) or as ≥ 10 mm with spiral CT scan.
Measurable Disease. Measurable tumour lesions (nodal, subcutaneous, lung parenchyma, solid organ metastases) are defined as those that can be accurately measured in at least one dimension (longest diameter to be recorded) as ≥20 mm with chest x-ray and as ≥10 mm with CT scan or clinical examination. Bone lesions are considered measurable only if assessed by CT scan and have an identifiable soft tissue component that meets these requirements (soft tissue component ≥10 mm by CT scan). Malignant lymph nodes must be ≥15 mm in the short axis to be considered measurable; only the short axis will be measured and followed. All tumour measurements must be recorded in millimetres (or decimal fractions of centimetres). Previously irradiated lesions are not considered measurable unless progression has been documented in the lesion.
Measurable Disease. Requires bidimensionally measurable lesion with clearly defined margins by at least one of the following criteria:

Related to Measurable Disease

  • Ongoing Performance Measures The Department intends to use performance-reporting tools in order to measure the performance of Contractor(s). These tools will include the Contractor Performance Survey (Exhibit H), to be completed by Customers on a quarterly basis. Such measures will allow the Department to better track Vendor performance through the term of the Contract(s) and ensure that Contractor(s) consistently provide quality services to the State and its Customers. The Department reserves the right to modify the Contractor Performance Survey document and introduce additional performance-reporting tools as they are developed, including online tools (e.g. tools within MFMP or on the Department's website).

  • Performance Indicators The HSP’s delivery of the Services will be measured by the following Indicators, Targets and where applicable Performance Standards. In the following table: n/a meanç ‘not-appIicabIe’, that there iç no defined Performance Standard for the indicator for the applicable year. tbd means a Target, and a Performance Standard, if applicable, will be determined during the applicable year. INDICATOR CATEGORY INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD Organizational Health and Financial Indicators Debt Service Coverage Ratio (P) 1 c1 Total Margin (P) 0 cO Coordination and Access Indicators Percent Resident Days – Long Stay (E) n/a n/a Wait Time from LHIN Determination of Eligibility to LTC Home Response (M) n/a n/a Long-Term Care Home Refusal Rate (E) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2/3 INDICATOR CATEGORY Quality and Resident Safety Indicators INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator Percentage of Residents Who Fell in the Last 30 days (M) 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD n/a n/a Percentage of Residents Whose Pressure Ulcer Worsened (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents on Antipsychotics Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents in Daily Physical Restraints (M) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2.0 LHIN-Specific Performance Obligations 3/3

  • Targets and Milestones Comparing the relative performance of different groups to the over or under- representation within the institution and taking into account our current performance in our Access Agreement milestones, areas for particular focus include: Low Participating Neighbourhoods; Low income groups; Target groups to include gender, disability and care leavers; Black and minority ethnic (BME) group attainment; Completion rates. As a result of the analysis of our performances, our access, success and progression interventions will concentrate on the following: Continuation of involvement in collaborative outreach activity via the KMPF and the Kent and Medway Collaborative Network (KMCNet) as part of the National Network for Collaborative Outreach (NNCO); Recognition of the importance of carefully targeted activity; The use of serial rather than one-off interventions; The importance of long-term outreach to include the whole student lifecycle; The helpfulness of Higher Education Access Tracker (HEAT) for evaluating the impact of interventions; The importance of a whole institution approach; The importance of student attendance monitoring; Ease of access to information and student welfare support; An increasing emphasis on evaluation of activities across the student lifecycle; Accessibility of employability advice and support. Given our relatively strong record to date for widening access and student success, most of the targets seek to maintain, and where possible improve, this performance within a more challenging financial environment. Such targets may be especially challenging and stretching in relation to the access of those from Low Participating Neighbourhoods (LPNs), given the demographic decline in the number of young people (aged 18-21) in the population and the University’s already high recruitment levels from these groups. We have removed the University’s NS-SEC target in response to the UK Performance Indicator Steering Group announcement that HESA will no longer be publishing the NS-SEC indicator after 2016. As we already have LPN and Household Income targets in place we shall not be replacing this target with an alternative. We have reviewed our success targets and added new progression targets for 2017. There was a concern in the institution that our internal reporting did not allow for national and regionally adjusted benchmark comparison. We have therefore made the following adjustments to our success targets: Non-continuation two years following year of entry: part-time first degree entrants – all entrants: Replacing the OFFA agreement target with the similar data from HESA allows for national benchmarking to be undertaken in order to ensure that the University is maintaining its commitment to these students. We aim to keep our non-continuation rate in this area below our HESA benchmark rate. Non-continuation following year of entry: UK domiciled full-time first degree entrants – mature entrants: Changing the target to clearly focus on mature full-time first degree students (to match the national HESA data) ensures that we focus our efforts on this section of the student population and for the outcomes to be compared with HESA benchmarks rather than internally produced data. We aim to ensure that this student population’s non-continuation rate is at or below the HESA benchmark rate by 2020/21. Non-continuation following year of entry: UK domiciled full-time first degree entrants – all entrants: In order to ensure that young students are not disadvantaged by the focus on mature entrants, the University will also commit to maintaining the overall non-continuation rate for all students at or below the HESA benchmark. BME: the University will replace the current phrasing of the target around BME success with a more explicit aim of reducing the success gap experienced by BME students. Progression: the University has added a progression target that aims to keep us around or above the sector benchmark for the Employment Indicator from the DLHE survey. Combined targets from the collaborative KMPF project (agreed by all partners) are to raise applications and subsequent conversions to higher education from within the target schools and colleges in LPNs. These targets will need to be reviewed in the coming years to reflect changes to GCSE grading in schools. Our institutional and collaborative targets are included in tables 7a and 7b respectively.

  • Development Milestones In addition to its obligations under Paragraph 7.1, LICENSEE specifically commits to achieving the following development milestones in its diligence activities under this AGREEMENT: (a) (b).

  • KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 10.1 The Supplier shall at all times during the Framework Period comply with the Key Performance Indicators and achieve the KPI Targets set out in Part B of Framework Schedule 2 (Goods and/or Services and Key Performance Indicators).

  • Performance Metrics In the event Grantee fails to timely achieve the following performance metrics (the “Performance Metrics”), then in accordance with Section 8.4 below Grantee shall upon written demand by Triumph repay to Triumph all portions of Grant theretofore funded to and received by Grantee:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.