ライフサイエンスコーパス: CEA

1 CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) protein and c-DNA were de

2 CEA and hemin competitively bound with the dual DNA apta

3 CEA evidence was limited, but generally found targeted v

4 CEA informs the identification of high-value clinical pr

5 CEA inputs to the midbrain dopamine (DA) system are posi

6 CEA offers a standardized means of comparing cost-effect

7 in low-volume hospitals (first quintile 1-10 CEA per year) to 2.1% (2.0%-2.2%) in hospitals providing

8 and Endarterectomy Registry (2824 CAS; 1231 CEA) Medicare patients, CAS patients had a higher comorb

9 oups: CEA only (n = 300), CT only (n = 299), CEA+CT (n = 302), or minimum follow-up (n = 301).

10 Surgery's Vascular Registry (1999 CAS; 3255 CEA) and 4055 Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endar

11 The analysis included 161 448 CEA and 17 575 CAS procedures.

12 There were 8781 OAR procedures and 68896 CEA procedures included in the study.

13 .1% (2.0%-2.2%) in hospitals providing >/=80 CEA per year (fifth quintile; P<0.001 for trend).

14 A total of 182 cases (94 CAS and 88 CEA) performed by a single vascular surgeon were include

15 re predictors of poor OS (HR=3.67 and 1.92); CEA more than 200 ng/mL, absence of postoperative chemot

16 nuous) and the risk of stroke or death after CEA but not CAS procedures.

17 The 30-day rates of stroke or death after CEA in trials and cohort studies were 2.4% (CI, 1.7% to

18 e perioperative and long-term outcomes after CEA in dialysis-dependent patients in a large national d

19 has been associated with poor outcomes after CEA in small studies, but, to our knowledge, there are n

20 strategy for patients with restenosis after CEA remains unknown.

21 In patients with restenosis after CEA, CAS and CEA showed similar low rates of stroke, dea

22 ed risk of procedural death and stroke after CEA and CAS for high operator and high hospital volume,

23 n risk after CAS was greater than that after CEA.

24 e to biotinylated secondary antibody against CEA.

25 ction devices, and that compared CAS against CEA for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis were se

26 -TCB (RG7802) and CEA-targeted 4-1BB agonist CEA-4-1BBL.

27 utcome events occurred in patients allocated CEA, and 206 and 57 for those allocated CAS.

28 response of the electrochromic cell was also CEA concentration dependent and more sensitive when the

29 stria terminalis (BNST) or central amygdala (CEA) generates an aversive memory.

30 ate anxiety, including the central amygdala (CEA).

31 The central extended amygdala (CEA) has been conceptualized as a 'macrosystem' that reg

32 cted to the central nucleus of the amygdala (CEA), and both regions send convergent projections into

33 (1) whether the circuit connecting amygdala, CEA, and DA cells follows CEA intrinsic organization, or

34 We found that the amygdala-CEA-DA path follows macrostructural subdivisions, with t

35 However, the structure of this amygdala-CEA-DA neuron path to the striatum has been poorly chara

36 Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment strategies ha

37 livery studies, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and demand forecast studies.

38 Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a research method used to determine the clinical

39 s of patients undergoing CAS (n=124 265) and CEA (n=1 260 647) between 2001 and 2010 from the Nationw

40 Combination of miR-125a-3P and CEA improved the AUC to 85.5%.

41 um Mid-Expiratory Flow, MMEF25-75%), AFP and CEA for never smokers, light and never smokers with canc

42 s, readmission rates are similar for CAS and CEA although readmission length of stay is longer after

43 Outcomes after CAS and CEA among Medicare beneficiaries were comparable after a

44 g Trial) found no difference between CAS and CEA for the combined endpoint of stroke, death, and myoc

45 s assessing the relative efficacy of CAS and CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis (Endar

46 mary endpoint did not differ between CAS and CEA groups (2.3% vs 2.7%, adjusted odds ratio 0.8, 95% c

47 ns on the post-treatment scan in the CAS and CEA groups separately.

48 e largest randomized trial comparing CAS and CEA in patients at increased surgical risk, SAPPHIRE (St

49 Among CAS and CEA patients, 30% versus 40% were symptomatic, respectiv

50 patients with restenosis after CEA, CAS and CEA showed similar low rates of stroke, death, and reste

51 cidence of perioperative stroke with CAS and CEA to improved patient selection.

52 CAS and CEA were associated with similar rates of a composite of

53 rovider factors, differences between CAS and CEA were attenuated or no longer present (hazard ratio f

54 s in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA were similar, suggesting robust clinical durability

55 We also assessed differences between CAS and CEA.

56 than 50% during follow-up, comparing CAS and CEA.

57 re type and symptom status]) between CAS and CEA.

58 he stronger binding affinity between CEA and CEA-aptamer than the pi-pi stacking interactions has bee

59 with peripheral blood mononuclear cells and CEA-expressing MKN-45 gastric or FOLR1-expressing HeLa c

60 and P63; whereas negative for CK7, CK20, and CEA.

61 ed intensive monitoring groups (CEA, CT, and CEA+CT; 18.2% [164/901]) vs the minimum follow-up group

62 dies to IGFBP2, p53, HER2-ICD, HER2-ECD, and CEA, but not to tetanus toxin, relative to controls and

63 The OAR and CEA procedures performed by very low-volume surgeons res

64 and higher-volume surgeons for both OAR and CEA, adjusting for patient, surgeon, and hospital charac

65 combination therapy of CEA-TCB (RG7802) and CEA-targeted 4-1BB agonist CEA-4-1BBL.

66 ted States and Canada who underwent TCAR and CEA for carotid artery stenosis (2016- 2019) were includ

67 t differences were observed between TCAR and CEA in terms of in-hospital stroke/death [TCAR,1.6% vs.C

68 s so far: anti-EpCAM BiTE((R)) AMG 110, anti-CEA BiTE((R)) MEDI-565/AMG 211, and anti-PSMA BiTE((R))

69 ed the reaction between CEA protein and anti-CEA in real-time with high specificity, which revealed s

70 iation constant between CEA protein and anti-CEA was estimated to be 6.35x10(-11)M, indicating the hi

71 dish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled antibody (anti-CEA) in immunoassays was efficiently immobilized to demo

72 humanized anticarcinoembryonic antigen (anti-CEA) monoclonal antibody, labetuzumab, can be used as a

73 ies targeting carcinoembryonic antigen (Anti-CEA) were immobilized to the graphene surface via non-co

74 The capture anti-CEA antibody (Ab) with high density can be anchored on A

75 sized conjugate of heparin and a murine anti-CEA mAb, T84.66 (termed T84.66-Hep) was found able to bi

76 ng the high affinity and sensitivity of anti-CEA-GFET.

77 ntrast can be obtained with pretargeted anti-CEA immuno-PET in relapsed MTC patients, especially usin

78 at new-generation humanized recombinant anti-CEA x antihistamine-succinyl-glycine (HSG) trivalent BsM

79 The resulting anti-CEA modified GFET sufficiently monitored the reaction be

80 the bispecific monoclonal antibody TF2 (anti-CEA x anti-histamine-succinyl-glycine [HSG]) and the di-

81 after initial targeting of a trivalent anti-CEA, bispecific, antipeptide antibody.

82 Conclusion: Immuno-PET using anti-CEA/anti-IMP288 bispecific antibody, followed by (68)Ga-

83 tegy involves modifying the Au NPs with anti-CEA antibody conjugates to form nanoprobes in a sandwich

84 ne or chimeric anticarcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) bispecific antibody (BsMAb) and peptides labeled wi

85 cancer biomarker, cancinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

86 ive primary tumor, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) >200 mug/L, and clinical risk score (CRS) >=4.

87 ors for death were carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) >80 mug/L, progressive disease on chemotherapy, siz

88 rapidly capturing carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and hemin, an all-in-one dual-aptasensor with 1,1'-

89 neous detection of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) in a clinical sam

90 y, we used an anti-carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) antibody (MN-14) tagged with both a radiolabel ((11

91 Using carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a model analyte, the proposed label-free immunos

92 applied to detect carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) by measuring the end-product of immunoassay perform

93 r the detection of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in 30 muL of whole blood with the assistance of a p

94 ssay for detecting carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in a continuous and recyclable way has been propose

95 r the detection of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in which AuNPs covered with neutravidin (N-AuNPs) a

96 Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is an important oncomarker for the detection of bre

97 pretreatment serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels (C stage) into the conventional TNM staging

98 rubin, CA19-9, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were 0.6 mg/dL, 15.0 U/mL, and 2.7 ng/mL, re

99 internalizing anti-carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monoclonal antibody (mAb) and intracellular deliver

100 ficity at specific carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) thresholds for detecting recurrent colorectal cance

101 Then the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was immobilized between the primary antibody and ho

102 ease biomarker and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), a cancer biomarker was also tested by the Al-QS.

103 cancer biomarkers: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), cancer antigen 125 (CA125

104 r the detection of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), an implicated tumor biomarker found in several typ

105 fibrinogen (FIB), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA199) were examine

106 rus DNA, 0.01ng/mL carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and the 10 HER2-expressing cancer cells.

107 biomarkers such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), bilirubin, alpha fetoprotein (AFP), and c-reactive

108 approach to treat carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-expressing tumors.

109 2 (HER2)-negative, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-positive metastatic breast cancer, compared with CT

110 o different cancer carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-related cell adhesion molecules 5 (CEACAM5) & 1 (CE

111 -related biomarker carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

112 e tumor biomarker, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

113 SERS) detection of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

114 rget biomarker was carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

115 antibody film for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA, an important biomarker in colorectal cancer), integ

116 Using a dual DNA aptamer (CEA aptamer linked to hemin aptamer), capable of rapidly

117 tor cells in cultured epithelial autografts (CEAs) regenerate human epidermis after transplantation,

118 nd carotid endarterectomy (CEA), with better CEA outcomes than CAS outcomes noted in the more elderly

119 The stronger binding affinity between CEA and CEA-aptamer than the pi-pi stacking interactions

120 The dissociation constant between CEA protein and anti-CEA was estimated to be 6.35x10(-11

121 , and composite major adverse events between CEA and CAS.

122 sufficiently monitored the reaction between CEA protein and anti-CEA in real-time with high specific

123 antification of two major cancer biomarkers (CEA and AFP) in different approaches.

124 Blood CEA was measured every 3 months for 2 years, then every

125 irm those of CREST and demonstrate that both CEA and CAS can be performed safely by a vascular surgeo

126 ctors such as family history of lung cancer, CEA and AFP for light smokers, and lung function test (M

127 Mucous cells of MECs were positive for CK7, CEA, as well as periodic acid-Schiff (PAS), whereas nega

128 llow-up; there was no advantage in combining CEA and CT.

129 ilm was first incubated in sample containing CEA and next incubated in SERS tag.

130 , the xenogeneic nature of that conventional CEA culture system restricts its use to the treatment of

131 ural nodule was present in 27% of the cysts, CEA level was higher than 192 ng/mL in 39.4% of patients

132 The 3D immunosensor is able to detect CEA with a wide linear range (0.1-750.0ngml(-1)), low de

133 e immunosensor was able to rapidly determine CEA with a wide linear range of 0.1-60ngmL(-1) and a low

134 ng perioperative cerebral infarctions during CEA.

135 use of intraoperative SSEP monitoring during CEA; immediate postoperative assessment and/or as long a

136 54 patients were randomly assigned to either CEA or CAS treatment in the four studies.

137 ing (CAS) and carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) for the prevention of stroke due to carotid artery

138 ng (CAS) relative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among Medicare patients has not been established.

139 e or death following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) on a national lev

140 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS); to describe hosp

141 lesions after CAS or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are associated with an increased risk of recurrent

142 y stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are lacking.

143 ysis patients showed carotid endarterectomy (CEA) decreased stroke risk compared with medical managem

144 tent complication of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (CS)

145 stenting (CAS) than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis.

146 artery stenosis with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAAS), the ben

147 sy regarding whether carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be superior fo

148 rse events following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS), the applicability

149 nts of outcome after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS).

150 ysm repair (OAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed by very low-volume surgeons in New York.

151 at the conclusion of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to reverse the anticoagulant effects of heparin and

152 nical equipoise with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), as evidenced by 2 large U.S. randomized clinical t

153 y stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), with better CEA outcomes than CAS outcomes noted i

154 CRF-enriched CEA-DA projections are positioned to influence outputs t

155 stroke, death, and composite adverse events (CEA, 4.5% vs 3.4%; P = .79; CAS, 5.2% vs 4.3%; P >.99) w

156 rocedural risks combined) continue to favour CEA, the similarity of the postprocedural rates suggest

157 l and postprocedural risks combined favoured CEA, with treatment differences at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 yea

158 roke (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.21-2.62) following CEA.

159 ssion (OR, 1.30; 95% CI 1.04-1.62) following CEA.

160 f myocardial infarction was higher following CEA (2.3% vs 1.1%, P = .03), there was no significant di

161 complications occurred more often following CEA than CAS (1.1% versus 0.5%; P<0.001); readmission ra

162 complications occurred more often following CEA.

163 in predicting neurological outcome following CEA.

164 SSEP use in postoperative outcomes following CEA in patients with symptomatic CS from January 1, 1950

165 ble evidence, the use of protamine following CEA is associated with a reduction in bleeding complicat

166 decreased risk of death or stroke following CEA was found for high compared to low operator volume w

167 nnecting amygdala, CEA, and DA cells follows CEA intrinsic organization, or a more direct topography

168 inearity in ranges of 0.01-500 ng mL(-1) for CEA (R(2) = 0.989) and 0.05-500 ng mL(-1) for NSE (R(2)

169 limit of detection (LOD) was 2 pg mL(-1) for CEA and 10 pg mL(-1) for NSE.

170 olume thresholds were 10, 25, 46, and 79 for CEA and 2, 6, 12, and 26 for CAS procedures.

171 two treatments: 0.60% (95% CI 0.46-0.79) for CEA and 0.64% (0.49-0.83) for CAS.

172 eatment group (p>/=0.09 for CAS and 0.83 for CEA), or between treatment groups (p=0.84).

173 6fg/ml in comparison with 0.39ng/ml, and for CEA: 2nd and 4th approaches: 1.90fg/ml versus 0.46ng/ml,

174 Raman reporter and to a natural antibody for CEA as recognition element.

175 The response of the plastic antibody for CEA revealed great selectivity against other tumour mark

176 rial and showed a colour gradient change for CEA concentrations, ranging from 0.1 ng/mL to 100 mug/mL

177 f using two different targeting elements for CEA.

178 to identify acute care hospitalizations for CEA and CAS from 2009 to 2011.

179 In detail, the sensing layer for CEA consisted of a Fluorine-doped Tin Oxide (FTO) conduc

180 The detection limit for CEA was found to be 0.46 ng/mL.

181 nd readmission length of stay was longer for CEA than CAS (2 versus 1 day, respectively; P=0.002).

182 f an array platform with high-throughput for CEA together with other tumor biomarkers and C-reactive

183 participants) over approximately 5 years for CEA compared with medical therapy.

184 (8.4) years for OAR and 71.5 (9.1) years for CEA.

185 Future CEA studies should consider how patient engagement may i

186 in the combined intensive monitoring groups (CEA, CT, and CEA+CT; 18.2% [164/901]) vs the minimum fol

187 nts were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: CEA only (n = 300), CT only (n = 299), CEA+CT (n = 302),

188 ent study were to (1) identify published HCV CEA studies that include patient input and (2) derive in

189 complexity were also associated with higher CEA level.

190 059 revascularizations from 2,287 hospitals, CEA and CAS were performed in 81.5% and 18.5% of cases,

191 ellular domain (ICD), HER2-ECD, p53, IGFBP2, CEA, and tetanus toxoid were examined.

192 In CEA patients, the crude risk of stroke or death decrease

193 striatal subregions specifically involved in CEA-DA-striatal loops.

194 An inverse volume-outcome relationship in CEA-treated patients was demonstrated.

195 Higher annual institutional CEA volumes were associated with lower risk for 30-day r

196 clinical benefit measures incorporated into CEA.

197 Intra-CEA DHK also increased anxiety-like behavior such that p

198 At lower doses, intra-CEA DHK produced modest increases in ICSS responding (T0

199 test showed no significant effects of intra-CEA DHK on locomotion.

200 n mice with subcutaneous and intraperitoneal CEA-expressing tumors: a dose escalation study to determ

201 utcome of CAS or CEA after prior ipsilateral CEA of a minimum of 5 patients.

202 triatal regions targeted by DA cells lacking CEA input.

203 The serum tumor markers CEA, CA125 and CA153 in a 240 mg/kg/d SPG-56 decreased b

204 benefit from therapy, and circulating MUC1, CEA and perhaps tumor cells to monitor patients with met

205 heranostic imaging method for HER2-negative, CEA-positive metastatic breast cancer patients and warra

206 The amygdala central nucleus (CEA) has been implicated in feeding control, but its rol

207 Of 360 records screened, 12 studies (3%) of CEA were eligible for data pooling.

208 ti-CD8-PET-tracer with the mode of action of CEA-TCB/CEA-4-1BBL and FOLR1-TCB at relevant doses.

209 not establish incremental overall benefit of CEA, stenting, or intensification of medical therapy.

210 r was obtained when higher concentrations of CEA were present.

211 d excellent specificity for the detection of CEA even in the real human serum, upon which it is propo

212 h revealed selective electrical detection of CEA with a limit of detection (LOD) of less than 100pg/m

213 Thereby, quantitative evaluation of CEA concentration in a broad range from 1ngmL(-1) to 0.5

214 During the 10-year period, the frequency of CEA declined, whereas CAS use slowly increased.

215 exponentially decreased with the increase of CEA concentration in human serum.

216 le cost-effective and frequent monitoring of CEA in order to establish its clinical relevance and pro

217 ed for the early detection and monitoring of CEA in the clinic.

218 are no large studies evaluating outcomes of CEA in this patient group.

219 dy was responsible to signal the presence of CEA on the MIP platform.

220 by electropolymerization, in the presence of CEA.

221 efficacy of (213)Bi and (177)Lu for PRIT of CEA-expressing xenografts, using the bispecific monoclon

222 r, operated with the competitive reaction of CEA and hemin in the presence of the dual aptamer, was e

223 for assessment and image-guided resection of CEA antigen-expressing tumors using dual-labeled MN-14.

224 The risk of CEA in symptomatic patients is also high, and it should

225 cted in patients at average surgical risk of CEA, CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Ver

226 We have shown that the risks of CEA in asymptomatic patients is high and may outweigh th

227 For ultra-sensitive sensing of CEA with great specificity and accuracy, an innovative a

228 rectal cancer recurrence, the sensitivity of CEA ranges from 68% for a threshold of 10 microg/L to 82

229 The lateral subdivision of CEA (CEl) contains a subpopulation of GABAergic neurons

230 rve (AUC) of 68.5%, in comparison to that of CEA at 83.6%.

231 ic (TCB) antibody and combination therapy of CEA-TCB (RG7802) and CEA-targeted 4-1BB agonist CEA-4-1B

232 n and observe the concentration threshold of CEA.

233 Age had little effect on CEA periprocedural risk or on postprocedural risk after

234 ate recovery of the fluorescence of CDs once CEA was introduced.

235 is were randomized to undergo CAS (n=124) or CEA (n=107).

236 ents treated by CAS (10 studies, n = 653) or CEA (7 studies; n = 479).

237 f they reported procedural outcome of CAS or CEA after prior ipsilateral CEA of a minimum of 5 patien

238 ls that randomly assigned patients to CAS or CEA and only patients with symptomatic stenosis.

239 Patients undergoing CAS or CEA were identified from the 2013 to 2014 Nationwide Rea

240 rm follow-up for patients assigned to CAS or CEA.

241 mary colorectal cancer, intensive imaging or CEA screening each provided an increased rate of surgica

242 data of patients undergoing elective OAR or CEA from 2000 to 2014 from all New York hospitals.

243 14 surgeons performed OAR and 1071 performed CEA in New York during the study period.

244 On the contrary, plasma CEA level is correlated with tumor size, infiltration de

245 We recommend routine pretreatment CEA testing as standard of care in colon cancer and use

246 spital variation in the choice of procedure (CEA vs. CAS) is associated with differences in RSRRs.

247 In these RCTs, CEA was clearly superior to CAS in patients aged 70-74 y

248 of-care analysis (POC), being able to screen CEA in real samples and differentiating critical concent

249 It is capable of screening CEA in real samples and differentiating clinical levels

250 1 (elevated) based on the pretreatment serum CEA level.

251 -targeting agent in colorectal cancer, since CEA is overexpressed in approximately 95% of colorectal

252 Here, we present evidence that soluble CEA is sufficient to induce proangiogenic endothelial ce

253 Dye800CW can be used to detect submillimeter CEA-expressing pulmonary tumors before they become visib

254 of time courses of mAb (T84.66) and target (CEA) in plasma and tumor tissues from a low-dose mouse P

255 ET-tracer with the mode of action of CEA-TCB/CEA-4-1BBL and FOLR1-TCB at relevant doses.

256 nduced by combination treatment with CEA-TCB/CEA-4-1BBL in MKN-45 tumor-bearing humanized mice correl

257 common among patients treated with CAS than CEA (1.2% versus 0.9%; P=0.042), while readmission for p

258 re higher for patients treated with CAS than CEA (8.3% versus 6.8%; P<0.001), but these differences w

259 riprocedural MI and cranial nerve palsy than CEA.

260 supported on connectional grounds, and that CEA termination over the PBP and RRF neuronal population

261 The proposed method could detect the CEA with a linear range of 0.05-0.50microgmL(-1) and a d

262 ach of the studied antifungals; however, the CEA was sensitive to potential changes in graft failure

263 ased periprocedural risk by age group in the CEA group (p=0.34).

264 patients treated with curative intent in the CEA group was 4.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-7.9%; adjusted odds rat

265 inimum follow-up group, 6.7% (20/300) in the CEA group, 8% (24/299) in the CT group, and 6.6% (20/302

266 In the CEA group, there was no difference in recurrent cerebrov

267 Cranial nerve injury (CNI) was 5.5% in the CEA group, while CAS was in 5% associated with other pro

268 tudies suggest that blockade of GLT-1 in the CEA is sufficient to induce both anhedonia and anxiety a

269 , we hypothesized that GLT-1 blockade in the CEA would induce symptoms of anhedonia and anxiety in ra

270 ted OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.51-8.69), and in the CEA+CT group was 4.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-7.9%; adjusted OR, 3

271 9) in the CT group, and 6.6% (20/302) in the CEA+CT group.

272 The main factors influencing the CEA were the incidences of postkeratoplasty fungal infec

273 nhibitor, dihydrokainic acid (DHK), into the CEA and examined effects on intracranial self-stimulatio

274 fer rate, but also for immobilization of the CEA and NSE aptamers.

275 We conclude that the concept of the CEA is supported on connectional grounds, and that CEA t

276 biosensor was used for the detection of the CEA level in real serum samples.

277 al nucleus divisions; (2) CRF content of the CEA-DA path; and (3) striatal subregions specifically in

278 Consistent with this, the CEA highly expresses corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF

279 Compared to CEA, TCAR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital

280 cranial nerve injury after TCAR compared to CEA, with no differences in the rates of stroke/death.

281 = 0.03) with increased antibody responses to CEA, IGFBP2, and p53, indicating that treatment induces

282 as found able to bind highly specifically to CEA over-expressing LS174T colorectal cancer cells.

283 ssociated with node-negative primary tumors, CEA <= 200 mug/L and CRS < 4.

284 date of dialysis patients who have undergone CEA.

285 pective review of all patients who underwent CEA in the US Renal Disease System-Medicare-matched data

286 ent CAS and 73 847 (86.6%) of whom underwent CEA.

287 We compared effectiveness of CAS versus CEA among Medicare beneficiaries.

288 r randomised controlled trials of CAS versus CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis to

289 Asymptomatic patients undergoing CAS versus CEA had similar adjusted rates of major adverse events.

290 uating the efficacy and safety of CAS versus CEA, given recently published clinical trial data.

291 These changes underpinned a CAS-versus CEA periprocedural HR of 1.61 (95% CI 0.90-2.88) for pat

292 ms of in-hospital stroke/death [TCAR,1.6% vs.CEA,1.6%, RR (95% CI):1.01(0.77-1.33), P=.945], stroke [

293 /biosensor had an electrical output that was CEA concentration dependent from 100 ng/mL to 100 mug/mL

294 in a Cox regression model comparing CAS with CEA.

295 tive and fluorescent signal colocalized with CEA-expressing tumors.

296 Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with a greater readmission risk.

297 ences in readmission after CAS compared with CEA, we used Kaplan-Meier survival curves and fitted mix

298 h-grade carotid artery stenosis treated with CEA or CAS by a vascular surgeon at our institution from

299 nd the harms of screening and treatment with CEA or CAAS.

300 ession induced by combination treatment with CEA-TCB/CEA-4-1BBL in MKN-45 tumor-bearing humanized mic