ライフサイエンスコーパス: bevacizumab

1 alone) and 752 to group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab).

2 MVs, restoring the sensitivity of VEGF90K to Bevacizumab.

3 se to treatment with the anti-VEGFA antibody bevacizumab.

4 epatic metastases or prior administration of bevacizumab.

5 vivo VEGF capture by the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab.

6 ib, but not to the VEGF therapeutic antibody bevacizumab.

7 -naive RVO-ME receiving monthly intravitreal bevacizumab.

8 ic purpura (n = 1), were possibly related to bevacizumab.

9 iogenic response with the anti-VEGF biologic bevacizumab.

10 I/USOR 07132 compared TC6, TAC6, or TC6 plus bevacizumab.

11 gned to treatment with either ranibizumab or bevacizumab.

12 ere randomized 1:1 to receive aflibercept or bevacizumab.

13 14 infants received 0.25 mg of intravitreous bevacizumab.

14 Patients received (89)Zr-bevacizumab (0.1 mg/kg; 0.9 MBq/kg) at least 2 wk after

15 Intravitreous bevacizumab (0.25 to 0.625 mg) is increasingly used to t

16 ved better logMAR VA at 1 year compared with bevacizumab (0.50 [+/-0.49], 0.49 [+/-0.44], 0.55 [+/-0.

17 1 year among treatment groups (-0.048 [0.44] bevacizumab, -0.053 [0.46] ranibizumab, -0.040 [0.39] af

18 domized to receive intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (1.25 mg; n = 182) or aflibercept (2.0 mg; n

19 gned to receive an intravitreal injection of bevacizumab, 1.25 mg, or aflibercept, 2.0 mg, at baselin

20 Bevacizumab, 1.25 mg/0.05 mL, was delivered in insulin s

21 Random assignment to aflibercept, 2.0 mg; bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; ranibizumab, 0.3 mg, up to every 4

22 ived two or more lines of therapy, including bevacizumab (10 of 24 patients), for advanced disease.

23 eyes treated with intravitreal injections of bevacizumab (10.5 +/- 7.6 (mean +/- SD)), 58 eyes switch

24 ral erlotinib 150 mg per day and intravenous bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days and were tested centr

25 treotide LAR 20 mg every 21 days with either bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days or 5 million units of

26 Patients in the bevacizumab group received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days startin

27 ve 5]) or the same chemotherapy regimen plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg of bodyweight) every 3 weeks and c

28 g/m(2) on day 1) with or without intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) in 21 day cycles until d

29 21 days) or carboplatin plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg; every 21 days), either with cetux

30 f pemetrexed (39.2%), erlotinib (20.3%), and bevacizumab (18.9%) and a decline in paclitaxel (38.7%),

31 26.8% to 74.0%; P < .001 for aflibercept vs bevacizumab; 20.4%; 95% CI, -3.1% to 44.0%; P = .09 for

32 Among all injections, 64.6% were of bevacizumab, 22.0% ranibizumab, and 13.4% aflibercept; 6

33 Of 13 859 patients, 6723 received bevacizumab, 2749 received ranibizumab, and 4387 receive

34 d in animals receiving a single high dose of bevacizumab (45 mg/kg 2 d before PET; n = 9) or in anima

35 macotherapies for ME, including intravitreal bevacizumab (5), aflibercept (2), and ranibizumab (4).

36 In most of the studies, the study drug was bevacizumab (52.6%, n = 49), followed by ranibizumab (44

37 noninfectious endophthalmitis was higher for bevacizumab (8/9931, 0.081%) compared with ranibizumab (

38 , 2.9% to 20.6%; P = .004 for aflibercept vs bevacizumab; 8.9%; 95% CI, 1.7% to 16.1%; P = .01 for ra

39 Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, improve

40 Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF

41 ormed PET scans on mRCC patients with (89)Zr-bevacizumab, a VEGF-A-binding antibody tracer.

42 Tumor (89)Zr-bevacizumab accumulation assessed by PET scanning may he

43 s study evaluated efficacy and biomarkers of bevacizumab activity for NF2-associated progressive and

44 a higher growth rate than eyes treated with bevacizumab (adjusted growth rate, 0.38 vs. 0.28 mm/year

45 Compared with bevacizumab, aflibercept treatment was associated with a

46 phthalmitis developed after coinjection with bevacizumab (aggregate rate: 0.14% of injections and 0.3

47 of progression, patients in arm B continued bevacizumab alone until disease progression or for a max

48 sion can reinforce the antitumor efficacy of bevacizumab, an inhibitor of angiogenesis.

49 id, and EMBASE using the terms FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab and (colorectal cancer).

50 CSMT of -128 mum (95% CI, -155 to -100) for bevacizumab and -176 mum (95% CI, -202 to -149) for rani

51 5.4 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.2 months) for bevacizumab and 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.5 to 14.4 months)

52 was enrolled, of whom 214 were allocated to bevacizumab and 213 to IFN-alpha-2b.

53 Sixty-six patients received ADT + bevacizumab and 36 received ADT alone.

54 ion) or the cetuximab group (n=656; 283 with bevacizumab and 373 without bevacizumab in the intention

55 tients to the control group (n=657; 277 with bevacizumab and 380 without bevacizumab in the intention

56 ponse rates were 12% (95% CI, 8% to 18%) for bevacizumab and 4% (95% CI, 2% to 8%) for IFN.

57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.0-9.2) for bevacizumab and 8.4 letters (95% CI, 6.3-10.5) for ranib

58 while both the absolute and relative use of bevacizumab and aflibercept increased.

59 rom a PET imaging study using (89)Zr-labeled bevacizumab and an autopsy study, a 1-on-1 analysis of m

60 differences in PFS were observed between the bevacizumab and IFN arms, which suggests that these agen

61 Common adverse events with bevacizumab and octreotide included hypertension (32%),

62 Use of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for AMD plateaued as of 2011

63 lysis of the relative efficacy and safety of bevacizumab and ranibizumab that used searches of biblio

64 ar degeneration (AMD) treated initially with bevacizumab and subsequently switched to either afliberc

65 use before and after the PSP requirement for bevacizumab and the physicians' reasons for change in th

66 rates were 75.9% for aflibercept, 31.4% for bevacizumab, and 55.2% for ranibizumab (adjusted differe

67 ted with aflibercept, 29 of 131 (22.1%) with bevacizumab, and 57 of 151 (37.7%) with ranibizumab had

68 mus (DAT) (N = 39) or liposomal doxorubicin, bevacizumab, and everolimus (DAE) (N = 13).

69 rs) were treated with liposomal doxorubicin, bevacizumab, and temsirolimus (DAT) (N = 39) or liposoma

70 Liposomal doxorubicin, bevacizumab, and the mTOR inhibitors temsirolimus or eve

71 I, 1.7% to 16.1%; P = .01 for ranibizumab vs bevacizumab; and 2.9%; 95% CI, -5.7% to 11.4%; P = .51 f

72 , -3.1% to 44.0%; P = .09 for ranibizumab vs bevacizumab; and 30.0%; 95% CI, 4.4% to 55.6%; P = .02 f

73 t that 7 or more intravitreous injections of bevacizumab annually is associated with a higher risk of

74 months (95% CI, 12.9 to 19.6 months) in the bevacizumab arm and was 15.4 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 18.6

75 s etoposide (arm A) or the same regimen with bevacizumab (arm B) for a maximum of six courses.

76 the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab arms of FIRE-3.

77 ept were more likely to use aflibercept over bevacizumab as compared to those who received no payment

78 d FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab Versus FOLFIRI Plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Treatment For Patients With Me

79 A dose of bevacizumab as low as 0.031 mg was effective in 9 of 9 e

80 ents who received intravitreal injections of bevacizumab as the sole treatment for exudative AMD betw

81 Less improvement was demonstrated with bevacizumab at 1 year than with aflibercept or ranibizum

82 east tumors stained in vivo with fluorescent bevacizumab at microdose levels.

83 Bevacizumab (Avastin(R)), a monoclonal antibody against

84 cerebral necrosis patients were treated with bevacizumab between June 2011 and February 2013 were col

85 , and three-drug schemes of cisplatin (DDP), bevacizumab (BEV), and paclitaxel (PTX) with conventiona

86 ized that if RES is used in combination with bevacizumab (BEV, anti-VEGF), it could reverse the adver

87 using 3D-structured peptides that mimic the bevacizumab binding site.

88 b-induced MIF reduction were identified: (1) bevacizumab bound MIF and blocked MIF-induced M1 polariz

89 measuring the tumor uptake of (89)Zr-labeled bevacizumab by PET.

90 After intravitreal injection, bevacizumab can be detected in serum within 1 day, and s

91 g study in children, we investigated whether bevacizumab can reach tumors in children with diffuse in

92 sociated VEGF90K has a weakened affinity for Bevacizumab, causing Bevacizumab to be ineffective in bl

93 therapy alone) or group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab), centrally, using permuted blocks sizes and

94 ab-chemotherapy group and 29.0 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified hazard

95 ab-chemotherapy group and 10.6 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified HR of 0

96 ion in a 2:1 ratio to receive lomustine plus bevacizumab (combination group, 288 patients) or lomusti

97 Cetuximab vs bevacizumab combined with either mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI che

98 ity in individuals with wet AMD treated with bevacizumab compared to a same age and gender group with

99 benefit with the addition of onartuzumab to bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab plus placebo in un

100 rates of noninfectious endophthalmitis with bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab or aflibercept.

101 is population, and report the results of the bevacizumab component here.

102 vascular endothelial growth factor antibody bevacizumab could explain lack of effect in diffuse intr

103 is study investigates how VEGF blockade with bevacizumab could potentiate PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition

104 ek of first cycle carboplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab (CPB) treatment.

105 ogenic response observed in combination with bevacizumab demonstrates that Q8 offers an alternative t

106 free survival, treatment with lomustine plus bevacizumab did not confer a survival advantage over tre

107 : 73 months), 1063 (19.7%) individuals after bevacizumab died compared with 1298 (12.1%) in the contr

108 Bevacizumab does not have a role in this setting and sho

109 Patients who received bevacizumab, erlotinib, or pemetrexed had the longest tr

110 Distinct reductions of VEGF by bevacizumab explain the additive antiangiogenic effects

111 uorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (FOLFOXIRI-Bev) is an established and effect

112 beneficiaries first received ranibizumab or bevacizumab following initial diagnosis.

113 e present more commonly after treatment with bevacizumab for acute-phase ROP than after laser.

114 phic variation in the use of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related

115 o analyze mortality in patients treated with bevacizumab for wet AMD.

116 istration approved the antiangiogenesis drug bevacizumab for women with advanced cervical cancer on t

117 ation, laterality of procedure, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, fundus photographs, fluorescein angiography

118 anibizumab for 2 years lost more VA than the bevacizumab group (-4 letters; P = 0.008).

119 a >/=3-line VA improvement at 1 year in the bevacizumab group (22.7%) compared with ranibizumab (20.

120 k rates were higher in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (23 [10%] of 233 in the chemotherapy a

121 flibercept groups (6.2 [+/-2.4]) compared to bevacizumab group (5.9 [+/-2.4]; P < 0.0001).

122 d 48.1% (43.2-52.7) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.08, 95% CI 0.91-1

123 ared with nine (3%) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (infection [n=1], febrile neutropenia

124 mean increase from baseline of 18.6) in the bevacizumab group and 69.3 (a mean increase from baselin

125 y reported of these in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group compared with the chemotherapy group w

126 6%) of 325 patients in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group had at least one grade 3 or worse adve

127 than baseline; ocular adverse events in the bevacizumab group included 1 participant with endophthal

128 Patients in the bevacizumab group received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intraven

129 an overall survival in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group was 42.2 months (95% CI 37.7-46.2) ver

130 ere reported more frequently in group B (the bevacizumab group) than in group A (chemotherapy alone)

131 y alone group vs 69 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group), and infections with normal neutrophi

132 erapy group and 201 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group).

133 alone group and 260 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group).

134 vs 52 [24%] of 220 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group); therefore, recruitment of patients w

135 he aflibercept group, 25 eyes (22.1%) in the bevacizumab group, and 40 eyes (31.0%) in the ranibizuma

136 ing complications were more prevalent in the bevacizumab group, occurring in 53 (12%) patients in thi

137 ntly different between the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups (8.4 months) and chemotherapy-alone g

138 5%) of 220 patients in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups (all previously irradiated) versus th

139 The chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups continued to show significant improve

140 groups: 16.8 months in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups versus 13.3 months in the chemotherap

141 s and 227 [50%] in the two chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups).

142 or cancer such as VEGF neutralizing antibody bevacizumab have limited durability.

143 ot respond or inevitably become resistant to bevacizumab, highlighting the need for more effective an

144 l do not provide any evidence for the use of bevacizumab in combination with peri-operative epiribici

145 n combination with liposomal doxorubicin and bevacizumab in patients with advanced metaplastic TNBC.

146 response to chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab in patients with advanced non-small cell lun

147 e of outcome to first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

148 enefit for the combined use of erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with NSCLC harbouring activating

149 (n=657; 277 with bevacizumab and 380 without bevacizumab in the intention-to-treat population) or the

150 (n=656; 283 with bevacizumab and 373 without bevacizumab in the intention-to-treat population).

151 oles of secondary surgical cytoreduction and bevacizumab in this population, and report the results o

152 ective comparators (FOLFIRI and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab); in contrast, in RAS wt patients with poor-

153 pecitabine chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in addition to surgery.

154 men consisting of anthracycline, taxane, and bevacizumab increases pathological complete response (pC

155 Two mechanisms of bevacizumab-induced MIF reduction were identified: (1) b

156 n a VEGFR2-dependent manner, suggesting that bevacizumab-induced VEGF depletion would downregulate MI

157 ween greater number of industry payments and bevacizumab injection use (r = 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.09;

158 Bevacizumab injections at 0.25 mg, 0.125 mg, 0.063 mg, a

159 ment Program, who had received intravitreous bevacizumab injections for exudative age-related macular

160 e oil droplets in the eye after intravitreal bevacizumab injections from a single specialist practice

161 ry compared with the number of intravitreous bevacizumab injections per year in cases and controls.

162 The number of intravitreous bevacizumab injections received per year-3 or fewer, 4 t

163 14-month period involving 6632 intravitreal bevacizumab injections, 60 cases (35 [58%] women) of int

164 oma surgery following repeated intravitreous bevacizumab injections.

165 ery, and at least 10 intravitreal (excluding bevacizumab) injections was conducted.

166 t group (IQR 41.5-62.2 for chemotherapy plus bevacizumab; IQR 40.8-59.3 for chemotherapy), at which p

167 Intravitreal bevacizumab is a frequently used antivascular endothelia

168 Bevacizumab is approved for the treatment of patients wi

169 enetration, while the similar sized antibody bevacizumab is effective in the same tumor type not beca

170 ELEVANCE: Relative safety of ranibizumab and bevacizumab is important in choosing an anti-VEGF drug f

171 To investigate whether bevacizumab is noninferior to aflibercept for the treatm

172 was designed to assess whether intravitreal bevacizumab is noninferior to intravitreal aflibercept f

173 rial designed to assess whether intravitreal bevacizumab is noninferior to intravitreal aflibercept f

174 e rebound effect (ie, shorter survival after bevacizumab is stopped than after chemotherapy alone is

175 N: The benefit conferred by incorporation of bevacizumab is sustained with extended follow-up as evid

176 Bevacizumab is used off-label to treat this condition de

177 ptimal interval of preoperative intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) administration in diabetic subjects un

178 To evaluate the outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) use in patients with a vitreous hemorr

179 Identifying a lower effective dose of bevacizumab may reduce the risk for neurodevelopmental d

180 after antiangiogenic therapy of gliomas with bevacizumab may result in a decrease in contrast enhance

181 In vivo (89)Zr-bevacizumab measurements showed heterogeneity between le

182 Bevacizumab might also be associated with impaired wound

183 Maintenance treatment with bevacizumab monotherapy was continued until progressive

184 n, these eyes were compared to 37 eyes under bevacizumab monotherapy.

185 zed to receive either cetuximab (n = 578) or bevacizumab (n = 559).

186 rd chemotherapy (n=337) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=377).

187 motherapy alone (n=533) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=530).

188 either single-dose antiangiogenic treatment (bevacizumab, n = 14) or control treatment (saline, n = 9

189 ds At first recurrence after chemoradiation, bevacizumab-naive patients with glioblastoma were random

190 riched MIF and VEGF at the enhancing edge in bevacizumab-naive patients.

191 graft models of resistance had less MIF than bevacizumab-naive tumors, and harbored more M2/protumora

192 In patients with HHT, a bevacizumab nasal spray treatment of 3 administrations a

193 eived placebo (n = 21); the other 3 received bevacizumab nasal spray.

194 adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel

195 Individuals who participated in both the bevacizumab objective and surgical objective (which is o

196 Randomisation for the bevacizumab objective was stratified by treatment-free i

197 TOPIC: A comparison between ranibizumab and bevacizumab of the incidence of systemic serious adverse

198 rthotopic malignant gliomas, inhibition with bevacizumab of vascular endothelial growth factor, which

199 was performed to investigate the effects of bevacizumab on BBB permeability and (18)F-FET uptake in

200 the control group plus 7.5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of every cycle of chemotherapy and

201 Patients who received TC6 plus bevacizumab on NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132 were not included

202 A statistically significant effect of bevacizumab on OS in patients who received maintenance w

203 he monovalent MET inhibitor onartuzumab plus bevacizumab (Ona + Bev) versus placebo plus bevacizumab

204 og odds of a >/=3-line VA loss compared with bevacizumab only (1.25 log odds ratio; P < 0.0016).

205 re common in the combination regimen than in bevacizumab only for hypertension (35% v 20%).

206 In eyes treated with bevacizumab or aflibercept, younger age and worse baseli

207 andomized 1:1 in a masked fashion to receive bevacizumab or aflibercept.

208 essed the progression-free survival (PFS) of bevacizumab or interferon alfa-2b (IFN-alpha-2b) added t

209 pment between eyes treated with intravitreal bevacizumab or laser photocoagulation (LPC) and untreate

210 ed incidence of CMCs was not correlated with bevacizumab or LPC treatment.

211 with the initial agent throughout the study (bevacizumab or ranibizumab in CATT and ranibizumab in DR

212 ogenic therapy with antibodies against VEGF (bevacizumab) or VEGFR2 (ramucirumab) has been proven eff

213 e changes in DR severity during aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab treatment for DME.

214 d in 650 participants receiving aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab.

215 64%, and 52%, respectively (aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P < 0.001; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P =

216 of everolimus and to explore whether (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET can identify patients with early disease

217 d to evaluate the predictive value of (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET for everolimus antitumor efficacy.

218 (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET might offer a tool to select VHL patient

219 In vivo (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET serves to identify heterogeneous uptake

220 Conclusion:(89)Zr-bevacizumab PET studies are feasible in children with DI

221 Methods:(89)Zr-bevacizumab PET was done before and 2 and 6 wk after the

222 Irinotecan/HAS2 (Hyaluronan synthase 2) and Bevacizumab/PGAM1 (Phosphoglycerate mutase 1) are intera

223 bevacizumab (Ona + Bev) versus placebo plus bevacizumab (Pla + Bev) in recurrent glioblastoma.

224 of onartuzumab to bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab plus placebo in unselected patients with rec

225 ts on the risk of floaters with intravitreal bevacizumab preloaded in insulin syringes.

226 in intravitreal silicone oil associated with bevacizumab prepared with insulin syringes was documente

227 rization region, and combined treatment with bevacizumab produced maximum inhibition effect.

228 Two eyes received intravitreal bevacizumab (range 3-6) injections, one of which also un

229 cation use for ophthalmic disease, including bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept.

230 RIS Registry patients with nAMD who received bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept only for 1 year

231 Purpose Bevacizumab regimens are approved for the treatment of r

232 The adjusted relative risk (95% CI) for bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab was 1.06 [(0.84, 1.3

233 Thus, bevacizumab resistance is driven by reduced MIF at the t

234 d two novel glioblastoma xenograft models of bevacizumab resistance.

235 ported in glioblastoma and may contribute to bevacizumab resistance.

236 ed increased tumor-associated macrophages in bevacizumab-resistant glioblastoma patient specimens and

237 This MIF enrichment was lost in bevacizumab-resistant glioblastomas, driving a tumor edg

238 Bevacizumab-resistant patient glioblastomas and both nov

239 Media from macrophages exposed to bevacizumab-resistant tumor cell conditioned media incre

240 the presence of condition-media derived from bevacizumab-resistant xenograft-derived cells, while rec

241 , suggesting that macrophage polarization in bevacizumab-resistant xenografts is the source of their

242 tive, and displayed M2 polarization, whereas bevacizumab-resistant xenografts transduced to upregulat

243 different, 59.6% vs 55.2% for cetuximab and bevacizumab, respectively (difference, 4.4%, 95% CI, 1.0

244 eft-sided tumors (vs FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, respectively), whereas patients with right-

245 pared with media from macrophages exposed to bevacizumab-responsive tumor cell media, suggesting that

246 In ovarian cancer patients treated with bevacizumab, serum MSMP concentration increased signific

247 reated with the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab, stratified by the presence of the pretreatm

248 Time to treatment failure was longer with bevacizumab than with IFN (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.8

249 mab or aflibercept, as compared to off-label bevacizumab, than those who did not receive any payment.

250 To find a dose of intravitreous bevacizumab that was lower than previously used for seve

251 receive an intravitreal injection of 0.5 mg bevacizumab; the fellow eye underwent conventional laser

252 Intravitreal bevacizumab therapy for ROP is associated with more rapi

253 Compared with the control, short-term bevacizumab therapy resulted in a trend toward BBB resto

254 st follow-up examination after initiation of bevacizumab therapy.

255 INTERPRETATION: Addition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve ove

256 We aimed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage rese

257 (switch follow-up) and after switching from bevacizumab to aflibercept- or ranibizumab treatment (fi

258 a weakened affinity for Bevacizumab, causing Bevacizumab to be ineffective in blocking MV-dependent V

259 urvival between the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to chemotherapy as initial biologic treatmen

260 Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to cisplatin and etoposide in the first-line

261 Switching from bevacizumab to either aflibercept, or ranibizumab, has a

262 as designed to assess the efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line cisplatin plus etoposide for t

263 The addition of bevacizumab to lomustine affected neither health-related

264 phase 2 trial suggested that the addition of bevacizumab to lomustine might improve overall survival

265 ivity and 79% specificity when using labeled bevacizumab to outline the tumor mass.

266 to assess the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to peri-operative chemotherapy in patients w

267 INTERPRETATION: The addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy, followed by mainte

268 To determine if the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to the combination of leucovorin, fluorourac

269 m/week in untreated eyes and 7.2 mum/week in bevacizumab-treated eyes (P = 0.038).

270 Among the 20 bevacizumab-treated eyes available at 4 years of age, al

271 respectively, and in control animals without bevacizumab treatment (n = 8).

272 s: before treatment (at baseline), following bevacizumab treatment (switch follow-up) and after switc

273 nts were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab treatment and to 3 treatment regimens.

274 FOLFOX-bevacizumab treatment elicited a decrease in gMDSC in 15

275 p) or without (control group), stratified by bevacizumab treatment, smoking status, and M-substage us

276 nts with the greatest chance of benefit from bevacizumab treatment.

277 but not limited to, the TRIBE (TRIplet plus BEvacizumab) trial.

278 Everolimus decreases (89)Zr-bevacizumab tumor uptake.

279 Five of 7 primary tumors showed focal (89)Zr-bevacizumab uptake (SUVs at 144 h after injection were 1

280 (89)Zr-bevacizumab uptake does not predict progression within 1

281 MRI contrast-enhanced areas, although (89)Zr-bevacizumab uptake in these areas was variable.

282 (89)Zr-bevacizumab uptake is enhanced by vascular proliferation

283 atumoral heterogeneity of uptake, and (89)Zr-bevacizumab uptake was present predominantly (in 4/5 pat

284 of multiregional in vivo and ex vivo (89)Zr-bevacizumab uptake, tumor histology, and vascular morpho

285 between MRI contrast enhancement and (89)Zr-bevacizumab uptake.

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

287 Bevacizumab use increased each year for diabetic retinal

288 The odds of receiving bevacizumab vs ranibizumab as initial therapy for neovas

289 .001; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.04; bevacizumab vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.01).

290 ortion responding (overall response rate) to bevacizumab was 28.2% among 39 patients with measurable

291 In the case of progressive disease, bevacizumab was combined with erlotinib.

292 Diluted bevacizumab was delivered using 300 microL syringes with

293 or hemiretinal vein occlusion, intravitreal bevacizumab was noninferior to aflibercept with respect

294 Intrasilicone oil injection of 1.25 mg bevacizumab was performed intraoperatively and at postop

295 med silicone oil droplets after intravitreal bevacizumab was prepared in insulin syringes by a compou

296 The biodistribution of (89)Zr-bevacizumab was quantified as SUVs.

297 Bevacizumab was the most common medication used, despite

298 After progression while receiving bevacizumab, we did not observe a negative rebound effec

299 of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $1110000 per quality-adjusted life-year

300 eyes treated with intravitreal injection of bevacizumab with fellow eyes treated with conventional l