ライフサイエンスコーパス: bevacizumab

1 ying patients that derive an OS benefit from bevacizumab.

2 or predicting outcome from administration of bevacizumab.

3 uly 31, 2018, and received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

4 egylated liposomal doxorubicin combined with bevacizumab.

5 considered for aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab.

6 Exposures: Intravitreal bevacizumab.

7 entify a population of patients treated with bevacizumab.

8 anti-angiogenic effect compared to the free bevacizumab.

9 tle impact on preferences for ranibizumab or bevacizumab.

10 compared to intranasally administrated free bevacizumab.

11 of the BBB before intraarterial infusion of bevacizumab.

12 h a method using PET imaging of radiolabeled bevacizumab.

13 nd compared to the outcome of treatment with Bevacizumab.

14 dema who received intravitreal injections of bevacizumab.

15 ial to treat vascular-related diseases using bevacizumab.

16 s been extended to account for the effect of bevacizumab.

17 KLCOS) among patients receiving intravitreal bevacizumab.

18 TFU to the final visit in eyes that received bevacizumab (0.32) and ranibizumab (0.28) compared with

19 d all-cause hospitalization were similar for bevacizumab (0.64, 0.59, 0.34, and 10.41, respectively),

20 zumab but was not cost-effective compared to bevacizumab ($1,151,451/QALY incremental CUR).

21 days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks or six cycles of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, days 1 and 15) plus carboplatin (

22 In phase Ib, pembrolizumab (200 mg) and bevacizumab (10 or 15 mg/kg) were given intravenously ev

23 n January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2018 (69 007 bevacizumab; 10 895 ranibizumab; 7942 aflibercept).

24 erence was found between groups (laser, 97%; bevacizumab, 100%; P > 0.99).

25 ied 3429 treatment-naive eyes (395 receiving bevacizumab, 1138 receiving aflibercept, and 1896 receiv

26 m-based chemotherapy doublet with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 3 weeks u

27 iopsy and received atezolizumab 1,200 mg and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks.

28 Pembrolizumab 200 mg and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg were chosen for phase II.

29 every 4 weeks, both followed by maintenance bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks in both groups) unti

30 nous atezolizumab (1200 mg) plus intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or atezolizumab alo

31 patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks.

32 andomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg), pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)), or a c

33 mg/m(2)) versus chemotherapy plus concurrent bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, cycles 2 to 6) versus chemotherap

34 or six to receive six intravenous cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, day 1) plus carboplatin (area und

35 servation window, including 614 (20.4%) with bevacizumab, 191 (6.3%) with ranibizumab or aflibercept,

36 d randomly assigned (60 to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; 59 to atezolizumab monotherapy) between May

37 were all cost-effective over 11 years, with bevacizumab 6.21x more cost-effective than ranibizumab a

38 anibizumab (138.2+/-114.3 mum) compared with bevacizumab (64.2+/-104.2 mum).

39 Local bevacizumab-800CW accumulation was evaluated by fluoresc

40 Bevacizumab-800CW enabled a clear differentiation betwee

41 nation of the sensitivity and specificity of bevacizumab-800CW for tumor detection, a mean fluorescen

42 We evaluated the addition of bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that target

43 ngiogenic therapy of glioblastoma (GBM) with bevacizumab, a VEGFA-blocking antibody, may accelerate t

44 Increased use of bevacizumab achievable with increased reimbursement to e

45 showed that combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab achieved better overall and progression-free

46 RCA1/2, HRR, and CD31 were not predictive of bevacizumab activity.

47 ologists who favored ranibizumab switched to bevacizumab after CATT publication, while most who favor

48 Bevacizumab, an anti-angiogenic drug, added to standard

49 and without a DFE were $85.55 and $68.85 for bevacizumab and $1787.58 and $17770.88 for aflibercept,

50 letters) improved by 6.7+/-7.0 letters with bevacizumab and 10.4+/-10.0 letters with ranibizumab, an

51 spectively (P = .12) and, 28% of patients on bevacizumab and 11% on temsirolimus had progressive dise

52 tion) improved, with 15.3+/-13.0 letters for bevacizumab and 15.5+/-13.3 letters for ranibizumab afte

53 ) of 48 patients who received niraparib plus bevacizumab and 22 (45%) of 49 who received single-agent

54 and randomly assigned: 48 to niraparib plus bevacizumab and 49 to single-agent niraparib.

55 The 2 models incorporated both bevacizumab and aflibercept.

56 Bevacizumab and maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase

57 Four eyes were treated with bevacizumab and one eye with ranibizumab.

58 efit and higher toxicity, the combination of bevacizumab and pemetrexed cannot be recommended.

59 The combination of bevacizumab and pemetrexed has also demonstrated efficac

60 c colorectal cancer compared with doublets + bevacizumab and provides advantage in PFS, ORR, and R0 r

61 eceiving aflibercept than in those receiving bevacizumab and ranibizumab (P <= 0.01 for both comparis

62 Bevacizumab and ranibizumab each conferred an 11-year, 1

63 We calculated weekly bevacizumab and ranibizumab utilization during 3 timefra

64 o identify predictors of the decision to use bevacizumab and survival following bevacizumab treatment

65 3%) and 47% (95% CI, 31.5% to 63.2%) for the bevacizumab and temsirolimus arms, respectively (P = .12

66 .3-mL polypropylene syringes with repackaged bevacizumab and the BD 1.0-mL polycarbonate syringes wit

67 ted on seven xenograft experiments involving bevacizumab and three different tumor cell lines.

68 Participants assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab and to 1 of 3 dosing regimens were released

69 ment was assigned randomly to ranibizumab or bevacizumab and to 3 dosing regimens for 2 years and was

70 tment groups defined by drug (ranibizumab or bevacizumab) and dosing regimen (monthly or as needed).

71 he no-treatment, photodynamic therapy (PDT), bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively.

72 ed with intravitreal therapy (triamcinolone, bevacizumab, and/or dexamethasone).

73 lizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone and combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in patients with unresectable he

74 While sunitinib and atezolizumab + bevacizumab are effective in subsets with high angiogene

75 Glioblastoma (GBM) responses to bevacizumab are invariably transient with acquired resis

76 MSI-H) tumors, longer OS was observed in the bevacizumab arm than in the cetuximab arm (HR, 0.13 [95%

77 The 6-month EFS for the bevacizumab arm was 54.6% (95% CI, 39.8% to 69.3%) and 6

78 zumab arm of this subgroup compared with the bevacizumab arm.

79 use of fluoropyrimidine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (arm B) in a 1:1 randomized, controlled phas

80 hese study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selecte

81 ed by analyzing another monoclonal antibody, bevacizumab, as well as a soluble antigen, circulating P

82 pared with 19 infants initially treated with bevacizumab at 24 hours (40% vs. 74%; P = 0.0115), 48 ho

83 served after censoring patients who received bevacizumab at crossover or as second line.

84 Maintaining bevacizumab at high concentrations over extended periods

85 Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line t

86 Bevacizumab (Avastin(R)), an anti-angiogenic monoclonal

87 As such, bevacizumab-based inhibition of VEGF has been the clinic

88 ter CATT publication, while most who favored bevacizumab before CATT publication continued favoring i

89 t 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + irinotecan (IRI) + bevacizumab (BEV) and regorafenib (REG) + selumetinib (S

90 ory approvals of rituximab, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab biosimilars, it is critically important that

91 apy combined with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab (BVZ) is approved as a first-line treatment

92 ctable capsules and appropriate diffusion of bevacizumab by providing optimal physical trapping and e

93 T-guided therapy and the use of intravitreal bevacizumab by the global retinal community has prevente

94 mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab chemotherapy every 2 weeks and either high-d

95 al or complete response to chemotherapy plus bevacizumab combination.

96 des bevacizumab-containing combinations (eg, bevacizumab combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel or carb

97 nces were observed for patients who received bevacizumab compared with chemotherapy alone.

98 Median OS for stage IV bevacizumab-concurrent plus maintenance was 42.8 v 32.6

99 ble for platinum-based re-treatment includes bevacizumab-containing combinations (eg, bevacizumab com

100 head-to-head trial was to compare a standard bevacizumab-containing regimen versus carboplatin-pegyla

101 chemotherapy plus concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab (cycles 2 to 22).

102 (89)Zr-bevacizumab deferoxamine ((89)Zr-BVDFO) was prepared wit

103 In this study, atezolizumab and bevacizumab demonstrated safety and resulted in objectiv

104 carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-bevacizumab (experimental group) and 337 were randomly a

105 itial treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, followed by the addition of irinotecan at f

106 Three eyes received intravitreous bevacizumab for neovascularization.

107 Substituting bevacizumab for ranibizumab and aflibercept in the 2018

108 Fluorescein angiography after bevacizumab for ROP reveals abnormal vascular patterns i

109 ng to meet the need for long-term release of bevacizumab for several months to one year.

110 nd after preoperative chemoradiotherapy with bevacizumab for the prediction of complete pathologic tu

111 the use of OCT-guided therapy and the use of bevacizumab for the treatment of exudative AMD has saved

112 is led to a clinical trial using intravenous bevacizumab for the treatment of exudative AMD.

113 ecule increased the intraocular half-life of bevacizumab from 5.8 days to over 18 days and maintained

114 flibercept (from 1 in 2011 to 2.20 in 2014), bevacizumab (from 1.84 in 2009 to 3.40 in 2014), and ran

115 0 mg of pembrolizumab and a 15 mg/kg dose of bevacizumab given every 3 weeks is safe and active in me

116 atment groups: 10 participants (7.1%) in the bevacizumab group and 13 participants (9.2%) in the rani

117 0%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the s

118 with a decrease of 287.0+/-231.3 mum in the bevacizumab group and 300.8+/-224.8 mum in the ranibizum

119 rse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had

120 e randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group.

121 nths (IQR 5.5-8.5) for the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 6.7 months (4.2-8.2) for the atezo

122 p; BCVA improved by 4.9+/-6.7 letters in the bevacizumab group and 6.7+/-8.7 letters in the ranibizum

123 even (12%) patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and two (3%) patients in the atezolizu

124 val was 11.2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7.7 months in the sunitinib gro

125 three [5%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy

126 n two [3%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy

127 w-up data on the efficacy of ranibizumab and bevacizumab (>=5 years), but these data are subject to t

128 In the CMS1 cohort, patients treated with bevacizumab had a significantly longer OS than those tre

129 Patients assigned to FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab had longer PFS (median, 12.2 v 9.9 months; H

130 9.9 months, patients assigned to FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab had significantly longer OS than those assig

131 15.9 months, compared with 14.4 months with bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; P = .12); median s

132 ients were allocated into those administered bevacizumab (hereafter, the BEV group; either bevacizuma

133 b with lomustine) and those not administered bevacizumab (hereafter, the non-BEV group with lomustine

134 significantly enhanced antitumor activity of bevacizumab, highlighting the importance of AGR2 as a pr

135 bsets with high angiogenesis, atezolizumab + bevacizumab improves clinical benefit in tumors with hig

136 ervation soon led to the intravitreal use of bevacizumab in 2005.

137 ets were observed in 78.3% of eyes receiving bevacizumab in Becton Dickinson (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ)

138 ments including aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab in diabetic macular edema (DME).

139 ial, we evaluated atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcino

140 d Relevance of antiangiogenic treatment with bevacizumab in patients with glioblastoma is controversi

141 aluated the efficacy and safety of high-dose bevacizumab in pediatric and adult patients with NF2 wit

142 ib plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian canc

143 n GOG-0218, a phase III, randomized trial of bevacizumab in women with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallo

144 Neutralizing VEGF-A in vivo using bevacizumab inhibited sympathetic innervation, promoted

145 were evaluated before and after intravitreal bevacizumab injection.

146 Carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-bevacizumab is a new standard treatment option for plati

147 Bevacizumab is FDA-approved in the treatment of primary

148 OLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab versus doublets + bevacizumab is lacking because all trials that have inve

149 quantification of intraarterial delivery of bevacizumab is needed for more effective and personalize

150 , based on the change in visual acuity, that bevacizumab is noninferior to ranibizumab for patients w

151 Intravenous administration of bevacizumab is the standard treatment for GBM.

152 higher rates of serious adverse events with bevacizumab is uncertain because of the lack of specific

153 Pemetrexed or bevacizumab is used for maintenance therapy of advanced

154 o evaluate the effectiveness of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) in

155 dium- and long-term sequelae of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) for type 1 retinopathy of prematurity

156 ate comparative cost-utility of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR), and i

157 After 14 days, bevacizumab-loaded PLGA NP demonstrated a reduction in t

158 BBB) and decrease off-target organ toxicity, bevacizumab-loaded poly(D,L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) nan

159 vings of $119 million with a 10% increase in bevacizumab market share.

160 Based on our findings, bevacizumab may be an effective alternative to ranibizum

161 The addition of olaparib to bevacizumab may be offered to patients with stage III-IV

162 Bevacizumab may benefit NSCLC patients with synchronous

163 However, the off-label bevacizumab may differentiate the success of biosimilars

164 longer OS than those assigned to doublets + bevacizumab (median, 28.9 v 24.5 months; hazard ratio [H

165 Therefore, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab might become a promising treatment option fo

166 Bevacizumab monotherapy had an individual, 11-year $14,7

167 evacizumab (hereafter, the BEV group; either bevacizumab monotherapy or bevacizumab with lomustine) a

168 randomized to receive injections of 1.25 mg bevacizumab (n = 139) or 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 138).

169 tients were randomly assigned to FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab (n = 846) or doublets + bevacizumab (n = 851

170 FOXIRI + bevacizumab (n = 846) or doublets + bevacizumab (n = 851).

171 ceive 6 monthly injections of either 1.25 mg bevacizumab (n = 86) or 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 84).

172 was elevated in bevacizumab-resistant versus bevacizumab-naive patients.

173 Patients were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab on day 1 or temsirolimus on days 1, 8, and 1

174 and p2, during capecitabine + oxaliplatin + bevacizumab or another reintroduction treatment from PD1

175 hase III trial that compared the addition of bevacizumab or cetuximab to infusional fluorouracil, leu

176 cancer treated with chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or cetuximab.

177 Previous treatment with bevacizumab or first-line maintenance PARP inhibitors wa

178 during first-line maintenance capecitabine + bevacizumab or observation until the first progression o

179 Single-agent bevacizumab or pemetrexed is efficacious as maintenance

180 gists who predominantly (>=80%) administered bevacizumab or ranibizumab and evaluated changes in pref

181 aim of this clinical trial was to prioritize bevacizumab or temsirolimus for additional investigation

182 ion of molecular alterations with either the bevacizumab or the cetuximab arms was tested.

183 5%CI, 0.44-0.82; P < 0.001) and specifically bevacizumab (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P < 0.001).

184 ing ranibizumab or aflibercept compared with bevacizumab (OR = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.31-4.37; P < 0.001).

185 etrexed, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, or atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel.

186 after intravitreal injection of aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab between January 1, 2016, and

187 pants were assigned randomly to aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab with protocol-defined follow

188 EGF treatment: OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88; bevacizumab: OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; ranibizumab o

189 EGF treatment: OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88; bevacizumab: OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; ranibizumab o

190 EGF: OR = 1.35; 95%CI, 1.02-1.77; P < 0.001; bevacizumab: OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04-1.87; focal laser:

191 ncluded 503 eyes which received intravitreal bevacizumab over a period of 2 years without pre and pos

192 icantly longer OS than patients treated with bevacizumab (P = .0046).

193 vascular density beyond that achievable with Bevacizumab, particularly suppressing the formation of l

194 ity was 29%, 37%, and 51%, respectively, for bevacizumab, pemetrexed, and the combination regimen.

195 litaxel, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, platinum-based two-drug combination chemoth

196 and overall survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ABCP) vers

197 aclitaxel (ABCP) versus the standard-of-care bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (BCP) in ch

198 n overall survival (OS) was 12.6 months with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (BC) and 11.0 months with

199 thalmologists who predominantly administered bevacizumab pre-aflibercept were 381 (41.9%) reducing an

200 thalmologists who predominantly administered bevacizumab pre-CATT-777 (74.6%) continued bevacizumab-p

201 d bevacizumab pre-CATT-777 (74.6%) continued bevacizumab-predominant use while 264 (25.4%) reduced be

202 (41.9%) reducing and 528 (58.1%) continuing bevacizumab-predominant use.

203 Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus s

204 ated that a single intraarterial infusion of bevacizumab provides superior therapeutic outcomes in pa

205 phthalmitis rate among the anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab 0.3 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and

206 Intravitreal NVAMD bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept monotherapies a

207 evented a 1-month-of-life loss, and revealed bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept conferred 0.14

208 compare the systemic safety of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept in real-world

209 direct ophthalmic medical costs expended for bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies

210 perspective, cost-utility analyses comparing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies

211 om an ophthalmic (medical) cost perspective, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept NVAMD monother

212 months after initiating index treatment with bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept, 19.3%, 15.8%,

213 after treatment initiation with intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept during routine

214 Eyes that received intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept for nAMD and we

215 re treated with intravitreal injections with bevacizumab; ranibizumab; or photodynamic therapy (PDT).

216 not yet commercially available, intravitreal bevacizumab rapidly became adopted worldwide for the tre

217 boplatin-gemcitabine) or the most active non-bevacizumab regimen: carboplatin-pegylated liposomal dox

218 Increasing bevacizumab reimbursement to $125.78, equalizing the dol

219 nts with increasing reimbursement and use of bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab and aflibercept.

220 tion for a long period, the burst release of bevacizumab remains a critical limitation in anti-VEGF-b

221 All anti-VEGF agents were pooled, and bevacizumab represented 66.1% of injections administered

222 Bevacizumab resistance in GBM is associated with mesench

223 Targeting ZEB1 reduces bevacizumab-resistant GBM phenotypes.

224 etic 3D bioengineered platforms modeling the bevacizumab-resistant microenvironment.

225 Single-cell sequencing of bevacizumab-resistant patient GBMs confirmed upregulated

226 Bevacizumab-resistant patient specimens and xenografts e

227 Honokiol caused greater cell death in bevacizumab-resistant than bevacizumab-responsive tumor

228 Serum YKL-40 was elevated in bevacizumab-resistant versus bevacizumab-naive patients.

229 We profiled paired patient specimens and bevacizumab-resistant xenograft models pre- and post-res

230 e treatment to aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab, respectively.

231 219 and 354 for aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab, respectively.

232 responders) to aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab, respectively.

233 d 13 additional aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab responder patients, respectively.

234 ter cell death in bevacizumab-resistant than bevacizumab-responsive tumor cells, with surviving cells

235 Treatment with intravitreal Bevacizumab resulted in unmasking of the pre-existing IL

236 Intravenous bevacizumab resulted in visual acuity and OCT improvemen

237 primary end point was overall survival, with bevacizumab serving as the control group.

238 Novel approaches using bevacizumab should be considered for children with NF2.

239 Instead, bevacizumab should be the base case ($17 379.41), with a

240 FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab significantly and meaningfully improves surv

241 Niraparib plus bevacizumab significantly improved progression-free surv

242 Bevacizumab, sold under the brand name Avastin, is a hum

243 assigned to receive carboplatin-gemcitabine-bevacizumab (standard group).

244 rmore, PLGA NP formulation totally prevented bevacizumab systemic exposure.

245 tients with MSI-H tumors benefited more from bevacizumab than from cetuximab, and studies to confirm

246 temic serious adverse events was higher with bevacizumab than ranibizumab (39.9% vs. 31.7%; adjusted

247 ival with a combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than with atezolizumab alone in patients wit

248 uracy in resolving tumor hemodynamics during bevacizumab therapy in two types of breast cancer xenogr

249 rers, with $24.2 billion (84.9%) coming from bevacizumab therapy, $0.7 billion (2.5%) from ranibizuma

250 received monthly intravitreal aflibercept or bevacizumab through month 6 or observation through month

251 ne to month 6, the noninferiority of 1.25 mg bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab was not confirmed.

252 The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy did not improve OS but impro

253 g the efficacy of intravitreal injections of bevacizumab to ranibizumab in the treatment of macular e

254 0 (99% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9, 14.2); bevacizumab-treated eyes without hemorrhage at month 6 h

255 ibercept-treated eyes, 63.8% (104 of 163) of bevacizumab-treated eyes, and 42.2% (27 of 64) of observ

256 Of the 176 ranibizumab- and 180 bevacizumab-treated patients, 53.2 and 72.9%, respective

257 aturation (sO(2)) were imaged in control and bevacizumab-treated tumors over the course of 58 days (K

258 Bevacizumab treatment at 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks results

259 al acuity improvement following intravitreal bevacizumab treatment compared with White and Hispanic p

260 Conclusion Bevacizumab treatment decreased tumor volumes, angiogene

261 l genes in resistant tumors correlating with bevacizumab treatment duration and causing three changes

262 THb content shortly after the initiation of bevacizumab treatment was followed by a recovery in oxyg

263 Record of bevacizumab treatment was found for 81 and 666 patients

264 Paradoxically, high-dose bevacizumab treatment was not associated with a signific

265 nt arm, (2) included a control group without bevacizumab treatment, and (3) reported on at least 1 ne

266 on to use bevacizumab and survival following bevacizumab treatment.

267 ts in growing tumors that were reduced after bevacizumab treatment.

268 efficacy frequently observed with prolonged bevacizumab treatments.

269 are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or len

270 thesia and infants treated with intravitreal bevacizumab under local sedation using multivariate logi

271 e and 153 kDa anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody (bevacizumab) upon IA injection.

272 predictors of major pathologic response were bevacizumab use (odds ratio [OR] 2.22; P = 0.001), tumor

273 ab-predominant use while 264 (25.4%) reduced bevacizumab use post-CATT.

274 Infants treated with intravitreal bevacizumab using bedside sedation returned to their pre

275 In addition, for bevacizumab, variability was driven by the hypothetical

276 HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.96-1.10], all P > 0.05), bevacizumab versus aflibercept (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.68-1

277 d phase 3 trial investigating niraparib plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in plat

278 oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab versus doublets + bevacizumab is lacking bec

279 AVANOVA2 compared niraparib and bevacizumab versus niraparib alone as definitive treatme

280 adjusted effect of treatment initiation with bevacizumab versus ranibizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96

281 a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic re

282 gression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic

283 Sensitivity analysis considered the split of bevacizumab vials.

284 average ophthalmic cost perspective CUR for bevacizumab was $11,033/QALY, $79,600/QALY for ranibizum

285 = .12); median survival with pemetrexed and bevacizumab was 16.4 months (HR, 0.9; P = .28); median p

286 the treatment of exudative AMD, intravenous bevacizumab was approved to treat cancer.

287 or clinical and demographic characteristics, bevacizumab was associated with 0.88 times the hazard of

288 Niraparib plus bevacizumab was associated with increased incidences of

289 Bevacizumab was chosen as the antibody-based therapeutic

290 Methods: Bevacizumab was conjugated with deferoxamine and subsequ

291 Two-year modeling revealed bevacizumab was cost-effective, whereas ranibizumab and

292 Bevacizumab was given for 6 months at 10 mg/kg every 2 w

293 In vitro experiments demonstrated that bevacizumab was maximally bound to this anchoring molecu

294 quantitative assessment of cortical uptake, bevacizumab was radiolabeled with zirconium-89 and infus

295 Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab was the only clinically relevant regimen tha

296 Fortuitously, both ranibizumab and bevacizumab were packaged at similar molar concentration

297 NP showed a higher brain bioavailability of bevacizumab when compared to intranasally administrated

298 We hypothesized that bevacizumab will potentiate activity of pembrolizumab.

299 BEV group; either bevacizumab monotherapy or bevacizumab with lomustine) and those not administered b

300 before chemoradiotherapy) administration of bevacizumab with preoperative chemoradiotherapy were inc