ライフサイエンスコーパス: tumor load

1 ice increased CRC incidence, tumor size, and tumor load.

2 a significant reduction of tumor growth and tumor load.

3 increase virus production, further reducing tumor load.

4 murafenib and an autophagy inhibitor reduced tumor load.

5 liver remnant to enable resection of massive tumor load.

6 culating EBV DNA is an accurate biomarker of tumor load.

7 e smaller in patients with higher metastatic tumor load.

8 ymph node metastases was consistent with SLN tumor load.

9 nd reduced early beta-catenin(+) lesions and tumor load.

10 vivo blocks myofiber atrophy in response to tumor load.

11 mitting both detection and quantification of tumor load.

12 ant reduction in lung tumor multiplicity and tumor load.

13 th, but this effect was overcome at a higher tumor load.

14 sed vaccine significantly reduced intestinal tumor load.

15 uction in tumor number and a 56% decrease in tumor load.

16 A levels that cannot be attributed solely to tumor load.

17 sulindac was necessary to maintain a reduced tumor load.

18 fective and, at best, only partially reduced tumor load.

19 odies plus recombinant IL-2 only reduced the tumor load.

20 pondingly reduced both primary and secondary tumor load.

21 ad succumbed to prostate cancer or had heavy tumor loads.

22 ion becomes significant only with very large tumor loads.

23 eas isoDCA protected gut barrier and reduced tumor loads.

24 For diagnosing high axillary tumor load ( 3 metastatic lymph nodes) versus low axilla

25 The OS among patients with high tumor load after liver transplant was compared with that

26 cell line demonstrated significantly reduced tumor load and an increased survival of animals after ol

27 sound can differentiate between low and high tumor load and can be used as a tool to select the type

28 y the OT-I CTL, with concomitant decrease in tumor load and extension of survival.

29 E leukemic cells in vitro as well as reduces tumor load and increases the survival of mice transplant

30 Among patients with high tumor load and left-sided primary tumors, the 5-year OS

31 ting later in the disease (day 14) increased tumor load and produced the expected reduction in therap

32 h levels (>200 units/mL) of Ca125 (marker of tumor load and progression) than in those with low Ca125

33 treatment with AZD6738 resulted in decreased tumor load and reduction in the proportion of CLL cells

34 s we demonstrated quantitative estimation of tumor load and tissue-of-origin mapping in the circulati

35 Tumor load and tumor frequency in mice that underwent sh

36 Finally, tumor load and tumor incidence were evaluated in mice tr

37 A fragments from a cancer patient can inform tumor load and type.

38 th nonresectable disease, an extensive liver tumor load, and left-sided primary tumors had long OS af

39 ndometrial cancer resulted in a reduction of tumor load, and since then we have constructed a fully h

40 between eicosanoid biosynthesis, intestinal tumor load, and the chemotherapeutic effect of the nonst

41 berrations, hyperdiploidy, and surrogates of tumor load are independently prognostic.

42 Patients with a low tumor load are the best candidates for a repeat resectio

43 al carcinoma, resulted in a dramatic drop in tumor load as compared with control APC(Min/+) mice.

44 tralizing anti-MIP-1alpha antibodies reduced tumor load assessed by monoclonal paraprotein titers, pr

45 Neither tumor load-associated parameters, such as degree of bone

46 Hepatic tumor load before liver transplantation, time from prima

47 en levels below 10 IU/mL were able to reduce tumor load by 50-fold when compared with control animals

48 ic activity resulted in a lower mean +/- SEM tumor load by histopathology (vital tissue, 4 +/- 2 vs.

49 umor multiplicity and 94% reduction of total tumor load compared to benzopyrene (B[a]P) treated mice.

50 n in 72% of treated tumors and had a reduced tumor load compared to control.

51 ibited shortened tumor latency and increased tumor load compared with Ptk6-/- mice, and STAT3 activat

52 Furthermore, tumor-loaded DC elicit expansion of CTL with cytotoxic a

53 esence of live B16 melanoma tumor cells, and tumor-loaded DC1s induce delayed-type hypersensitivity r

54 Importantly, mAbs-coated tumor-loaded DCs were consistently superior to DCs loade

55 ake on the [(111)In-DTPA(0)]octreotide scan, tumor load, grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity during treatm

56 For diagnosing high axillary tumor load (>=3 metastatic lymph nodes) versus low axill

57 ancer models, while an Akt inhibitor reduced tumor load in Aim2(-/-) mice.

58 amin D can significantly decrease intestinal tumor load in Apc(min) mice without severe toxic side ef

59 in tumor multiplicity and a 70% decrease in tumor load in both wild-type mice and in mice with a los

60 re package that can help physicians quantify tumor load in heavily metastasized prostate cancer patie

61 be a circulating biomarker for detecting the tumor load in majority of patients with HBV-related HCC

62 Dietary hemoglobin increased tumor load in Min mice (control diet: 67 +/- 39 mm(2); 2

63 various immunotherapies and a biomarker for tumor load in multiple myeloma (MM).

64 useful for the control of PRL secretion and tumor load in prolactinomas resistant to dopaminergic tr

65 n killing GBM cells in vitro and in reducing tumor load in subcutaneous mouse models.

66 ing monoclonal antibodies profoundly inhibit tumor load in the mouse bones, associating with reduced

67 2 alleles promoted 166 and 441% increases in tumor load in the small intestine, respectively, acceler

68 contributes to muscle wasting in response to tumor load in vivo.

69 HC in vivo led to a significant reduction in tumor load, increase in tumor-cell apoptosis, and increa

70 metastatic lymph nodes) versus low axillary tumor load (<3 metastatic lymph nodes), axillary ultraso

71 metastatic lymph nodes) versus low axillary tumor load (<3 metastatic lymph nodes), axillary ultraso

72 xenograft mouse models of cancer by reducing tumor load, metastasis, and host angiogenesis through do

73 endence of treatment outcomes on the initial tumor load, mutation rates and the turnover rate of canc

74 e-dependent Cox models adjusted for baseline tumor load, occurrence of new lesions, or unequivocal pr

75 r tip during administrations, as well as the tumor load of the liver segments, significantly influenc

76 esions in RECIST 1.1 may not reflect overall tumor load or response to therapy.

77 of inhibition did not correlate with either tumor load or the percentage of myeloid-derived CD11b+Gr

78 e MDR2 knockout mice liver induced increased tumor load (P = .007) and reduced survival (P = .03) in

79 e MDR2 knockout mice liver induced increased tumor load (P = .007) and reduced survival (P = .03) in

80 3 (70%) were HER2 imaging-positive (>=50% of tumor load positive).

81 Only 10 patients had 100% of the tumor load positive; 2 had 0% positive.

82 FGFR inhibitor significantly reduced liver tumor load post-RFA in MDR2-KO inflammation-induced HCC

83 of new therapeutics.Significance: Cell-free tumor load provides a novel approach for evaluating long

84 Patients with a very high tumor load showed a significantly lower uptake of (68)Ga

85 nd plasma cell infiltration as surrogates of tumor load significantly confer adverse prognosis with H

86 carcinoma observed a reduction in cumulative tumor load, suggesting most benefit to be gained by earl

87 A significant decrease in total tumor load (sum of all polyp areas) over the entire gast

88 Total tumor load (sum of tumor diameters per mouse) was also s

89 e found that Aim2-deficient mice had greater tumor load than Asc-deficient mice in the azoxymethane/d

90 ice exhibited a significant increase in lung tumor load (tumor multiplicity x tumor volume) when comp

91 evels can serve as a sensitive surrogate for tumor load; tumor VEGF contribution becomes significant

92 loped an ultrasensitive measure of cell-free tumor load using targeted and whole-genome sequencing ap

93 ll sensitivity of 50%, and is dependent upon tumor load, volume of fluid assessed, and cytopathologis

94 The 5-year OS rate for patients with high tumor load was 33.4% for those who underwent liver trans

95 High tumor load was defined as 9 or more metastatic tumors or

96 Despite no difference in tumor load, we found a 4-fold higher tumor recurrence ra

97 gher baseline PSMA-positive tumor volume and tumor load were associated with worse rPFS (HR range, 1.

98 d SUV(max)), PSMA-positive tumor volume, and tumor load, were extracted from five anatomic regions an

99 iciency, both pretumoral defects-latency and tumor load-were compensated.

100 mRNA splicing in lung metastases and reduced tumor load, while nanoparticle alone or formulated with

101 compared with that among patients with high tumor load who underwent PVE and liver resection.

102 ometrial cancer cells with EMP2-IgG1 reduced tumor load with a significant improvement in survival.

103 the dose of mAb and irradiation but also on tumor load, with greater efficacy only occurring at high