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 informs the identification of high-value clinical pr

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

5 CEA offers a standardized means of comparing cost-effect

6 CEA-induced activation of endothelial cells was dependen

7 0.016), CRP </= 12.5 (P = 0.001, P = 0.008), CEA (P < 0.001, P = 0.001), CA125 (P = 0.004, P < 0.001)

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

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

10 There were 2004 CEA performed in 1791 patients.

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

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

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

14 mprised 44 studies reporting data on 512,685 CEA and 75,201 CAS procedures.

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

16 .1% (2.0%-2.2%) in hospitals providing >/=80 CEA per year (fifth quintile; P<0.001 for trend).

17 Between 2008 and 2010, 841 CEAs were monitored and CHS occurred in 14 (1.7%) subjec

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 strategy for patients with restenosis after CEA remains unknown.

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

26 stem for prediction of 5-year survival after CEA that can be used to triage patients with ACAS.

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

28 (CEA) in blood plasma using antibody against CEA and a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensor.

29 e to biotinylated secondary antibody against CEA.

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

31 te and magnitude of T-cell responses against CEA was statistically similar between study arms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Calcitonin and CEA levels correlated significantly with WBMTB on (18)F-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

53 The RCTs comparing CAS and CEA were clinically heterogeneous; 1 RCT reported more b

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

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

56 We also assessed differences between CAS and CEA.

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

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

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

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

61 sitive resection, and expression of MUC1 and CEA.

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

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

64 were injected with soluble CEA protein, and CEA-specific CD8 T cells were analyzed for their phenoty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

79 ary 2008, 42 patients were treated with anti-CEA x anti-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) bis

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

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

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

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

84 rum calcitonin and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) doubling times (DTs).

85 Calcitonin and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) doubling times are currently the most reliable mark

86 antigens, such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) from colorectal carcinoma (CRC) cells, has been inv

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

88 a cancer biomarker carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in blood plasma using antibody against CEA and a su

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100 e tumor biomarker, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

101 -related biomarker carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

102 phic (PET) scan or carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

103 Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA, CD66e, CEACAM-5) is a cell-surface-bound glycoprote

104 lines were studied in CEA424/SV40 T-antigen (CEA/Tag) transgenic mice, which develop gastric tumors.

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

106 ients in the medical arm of the asymptomatic CEA trials was 60% to 70%, it is reasonable to conclude

107 CEA receptor in endothelial cells attenuated CEA-induced signaling and tumor angiogenesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

115 ncreased in patients of advanced age in both CEA and CAS (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.57-1.72 and OR, 1.30; 9

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

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

118 ial extended amygdala comprises the central (CEA) and medial nuclei of the amygdala (MEA), respective

119 Such systemically circulating CEA promoted tolerization of CEA-specific CD8 T cells in

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

121 iary center: 45 staged CEA-OHS, 195 combined CEA-OHS, and 110 staged CAS-OHS.

122 terval: 0.15 to 0.77; p = 0.01) and combined CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35; 95% confidence int

123 Staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS are associated with a similar risk of death, str

124 ensity analysis, staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS had similar early hazard phase composite outcome

125 rterectomy (CEA) followed by OHS or combined CEA and OHS are commonly used.

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

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

128 We detect CEA in three different blood plasma samples and demonstr

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

130 ng perioperative cerebral infarctions during CEA.

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

132 54 patients were randomly assigned to either CEA or CAS treatment in the four studies.

133 e, intraoperative shunt use and non-elective CEA (performed during hospitalisation for a symptomatic

134 ed the risk association between non-elective CEA and CHS (p=0.046).

135 patients with moderately or highly elevated CEA (>5 ng/mL), the 3-year PFS was 35% with perioperativ

136 and not necessarily associated with elevated CEA.

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

143 Staged carotid endarterectomy (CEA) followed by OHS or combined CEA and OHS are commonl

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

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

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

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

148 ng early outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid stenting (CAS) in elderly and young pati

149 The benefit of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) over medical therapy in patients with asymptomatic

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

151 dical therapy alone, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) plus medical therapy, or carotid artery stenting (C

152 erally accepted that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) reduces the risk of stroke in symptomatic patients,

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

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

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

156 tant complication of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), yet prior research has been limited to small cohor

157 artery stenosis for carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

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

159 T cells also eradicated CEA(+) fibrosarcoma cells injected 45 days later.

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

161 e metastasis was decreased by >50% following CEA knockdown.

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

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

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

165 in predicting neurological outcome following CEA.

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

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

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

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

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

171 6fg/ml in comparison with 0.39ng/ml, and for CEA: 2nd and 4th approaches: 1.90fg/ml versus 0.46ng/ml,

172 question current risk-benefit assessment for CEA in this subgroup.

173 e 0 to 8 points are excellent candidates for CEA whereas most patients with >/=12 points should be ma

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

175 T, in a population at high surgical risk for CEA, did not.

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

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

178 (8.4) years for OAR and 71.5 (9.1) years for CEA.

179 ich patients are likely to benefit most from CEA based on the probability of long-term survival.

180 r samples, as well as in gastric tumors from CEA/Tag mice, compared with non-neoplastic gastric tissu

181 Future CEA studies should consider how patient engagement may i

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

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

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

185 059 revascularizations from 2,287 hospitals, CEA and CAS were performed in 81.5% and 18.5% of cases,

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

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

188 (PCI > 24) was associated with elevation in CEA > 12, CA125 > 39, CA199 > 37, PLR > 166 and CRP > 12

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

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

191 clinical benefit measures incorporated into CEA.

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

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

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

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

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

197 triatal regions targeted by DA cells lacking CEA input.

198 s between baseline variables, tumor markers [CEA (carcinoembyronic antigen], CA125, CA199), inflammat

199 iontophoretically delivered into the medial CEA (CEAm), anterodorsal MEA (MEAad), or posterodorsal M

200 monitoring system was implemented to monitor CEA outcomes at a major academic medical centre.

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

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

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

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

205 prospective monitoring of a large cohort of CEA cases identified a brief time interval between ischa

206 of CAS, and comparative efficacy and cost of CEA versus CAS versus medical therapy.

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

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

209 cancer progression, but whether this form of CEA exerts any effects in the tumor microenvironment is

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

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

212 developments in the anesthetic management of CEA.

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

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

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

216 -free survival overall survival, and rate of CEA-specific immune responses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

225 d safety of CAS are not inferior to those of CEA.

226 n and observe the concentration threshold of CEA.

227 lly circulating CEA promoted tolerization of CEA-specific CD8 T cells in the endogenous T cell repert

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

229 ference with VEGF signaling had no effect on CEA-induced endothelial cell activation, downregulation

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

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

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

233 s, we silenced the expression of CD44 and/or CEA in LS174T colon carcinoma cells and analyzed their a

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

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

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

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

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

239 14 surgeons performed OAR and 1071 performed CEA in New York during the study period.

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

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

242 intraoperative EEG slowing, history of prior CEA or carotid stent and time from prior carotid interve

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

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

245 1 (elevated) based on the pretreatment serum CEA level.

246 ation was decreased as a result of silencing CEA but was enhanced in CD44-knockdown cells.

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

248 Soluble CEA released by tumors is present in the circulation of

249 sults elucidate a novel function for soluble CEA in tumor angiogenesis.

250 er exhibiting higher serum levels of soluble CEA.

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

252 , we address the question of whether soluble CEA influences tumor-specific immunity.

253 Mice were injected with soluble CEA protein, and CEA-specific CD8 T cells were analyzed

254 s before OHS at a tertiary center: 45 staged CEA-OHS, 195 combined CEA-OHS, and 110 staged CAS-OHS.

255 azard phase events compared with both staged CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.33; 95% confidence int

256 ort term, with both being better than staged CEA-OHS.

257 ard phase composite outcomes, whereas staged CEA-OHS incurred the highest risk driven by interstage M

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

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 Three RCTs showed that CEA reduced the risk for ipsilateral stroke (including a

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

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 ior BST, which do not directly innervate the CEA.

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

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

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

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

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

278 ial cell activation, downregulation with the CEA receptor in endothelial cells attenuated CEA-induced

279 = 0.03) with increased antibody responses to CEA, IGFBP2, and p53, indicating that treatment induces

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

281 erioperative challenges, patients undergoing CEA attain excellent outcomes.

282 department examined all patients undergoing CEA preoperatively and postoperatively at 24 h and 30 da

283 date of dialysis patients who have undergone CEA.

284 All patients who underwent CEA for severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis from 1989 t

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

286 d MRI, and were clinically followed up until CEA, death, or ischemic event.

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

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

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

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

291 ients (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.03), whereas CEA was associated with heightened mortality in elderly

292 atio [OR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.40-1.75), whereas CEA had equivalent cerebrovascular outcomes in old and y

293 in a Cox regression model comparing CAS with CEA.

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

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

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

297 periprocedural stroke) in CAS compared with CEA, whereas another RCT, in a population at high surgic

298 l optimization, the decision to proceed with CEA in asymptomatic women must be made by carefully asse

299 tenosis have less stroke risk reduction with CEA than their male counterparts; therefore, they should

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

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