ライフサイエンスコーパス: tumor burden

1 han targeting private events in reducing the tumor burden.

2 s (TLG) are superior to SUVmax for measuring tumor burden.

3 parameters for quantification of whole-body tumor burden.

4 ng U87 necrosis, effectively reducing viable tumor burden.

5 enesis, whereas atRA supplementation reduced tumor burden.

6 significantly earlier due to rapidly growing tumor burden.

7 y, expression of death receptor ligands, and tumor burden.

8 ant reductions in both intratumoral CSCs and tumor burden.

9 etion of Hdac3 in vivo significantly reduced tumor burden.

10 , because Notch3 inhibition did not decrease tumor burden.

11 an index of the glucose uptake by the total tumor burden.

12 issues, providing effective reduction of the tumor burden.

13 nd in vivo, resulting in marked reduction in tumor burden.

14 nous albumin production while reducing liver tumor burden.

15 icroglobulin as surrogate imaging markers of tumor burden.

16 ls to chemotherapy and significantly reduces tumor burden.

17 xtent of epithelial hyperplasia and a larger tumor burden.

18 ctomy for localized high-risk PCa may reduce tumor burden.

19 zed by advanced onset, histologic stage, and tumor burden.

20 xpression correlates with a high circulating tumor burden.

21 icantly increased only in patients with high tumor burden.

22 stem from this capacity to assess whole-body tumor burden.

23 they only comprise a minority of the overall tumor burden.

24 nistration] exhibited a two-fold decrease in tumor burden.

25 fic inhibitor destabilized c-Myc and reduced tumor burden.

26 ced CD11b/Gr1(mid) recruitment and decreased tumor burden.

27 -dose LPS treatment resulted in an increased tumor burden.

28 , with advanced-stage melanoma and increased tumor burden.

29 ed the effect of platinum-based treatment on tumor burden.

30 administration resulted in a decreased lung tumor burden.

31 survival and produced a profound decrease in tumor burden.

32 effects of doxorubicin and with an extensive tumor burden.

33 esidual disease treatment in mice with a low tumor burden.

34 than 2-fold greater than the mice with a 7-d tumor burden.

35 ic mice with Klf6 depletion had the greatest tumor burden.

36 ut did not inhibit bone resorption or reduce tumor burden.

37 etic (PK) variability could be influenced by tumor burden.

38 xic T lymphocytes (CTL) without compromising tumor burden.

39 nation with gemcitabine, strongly diminishes tumor burden.

40 n conferred a significant reduction in their tumor burden.

41 ells, which collectively reduced the primary tumor burden.

42 partial response, and 6 (27%) had decreased tumor burden.

43 iquid biopsy has shown promise in monitoring tumor burden.

44 inib confer further benefits in reduction of tumor burden.

45 c through Aurora A kinase inhibition reduces tumor burden.

46 ificant toxicity, even in mice with advanced tumor burdens.

47 the type of primary tumor (1.7), age (2.4), tumor burden (2.8), and presence of extrahepatic disease

48 Lung tumor burden additionally correlated (r(2) = 0.714; P <

49 rse colitis, p85(DeltaIEC) mice have reduced tumor burden after azoxymethane/dextran sodium sulfate t

50 cific CD8 T cells and NK cells in control of tumor burden after DC + IL-2c treatment.

51 mors retained elevated VCAM-1 expression and tumor burden after treatment.

52 +)-JQ1 treated mice before the pre-specified tumor burden analysis endpoint.

53 y gland doses of 1.4 Gy/GBq, irrespective of tumor burden and consistent on subsequent cycles.

54 This event leads to a significantly greater tumor burden and decreased host survival compared with u

55 ber of patients (5 cases) with high residual tumor burden and dismal outcome; nevertheless, using tra

56 Tumor burden and expression of proliferative and angioge

57 ation with the RAF inhibitor PLX4720 reduced tumor burden and extended latency of tumor regrowth in v

58 n the tumor microenvironment, while reducing tumor burden and extending survival.

59 cient Apc(Min/+) mice displayed an increased tumor burden and grade and decreased survival.

60 e noninvasive, whole-body assessment of HER2 tumor burden and has the potential to improve patient se

61 mic therapies for CTCL may variably decrease tumor burden and improve quality of life, but offer limi

62 with tumor irradiation significantly reduced tumor burden and improved overall survival.

63 Cotreatment reduced tumor burden and improved survival.

64 alter cellular growth in vitro and to reduce tumor burden and increase survival in vivo support a rol

65 Importantly, reduced tumor burden and increased animal survival upon paclitax

66 avascular glioma parenchyma, causing reduced tumor burden and increased animal survival.

67 treatment of wild-type mice also reduced the tumor burden and increased hematopoiesis and the numbers

68 al adenoma model, TIGAR deficiency decreased tumor burden and increased survival, while elevated expr

69 raconazole significantly reduced the myeloma tumor burden and increased survival.

70 High hepatic tumor burden and liver transaminase levels at baseline i

71 genesis, Loxl2-overexpressing mice increased tumor burden and malignant progression, while Loxl2-defi

72 g single doses of each drug leads to minimal tumor burden and maximal reduction in probability of dev

73 er cells in the presence of NE and decreased tumor burden and metastasis in restraint stress orthotop

74 hages with M1, anti-tumor phenotype, reduced tumor burden and metastasis, and enhanced survival.

75 d the surrounding microenvironment to reduce tumor burden and metastasis.

76 +) endothelium had a significantly increased tumor burden and more vascular proliferation (angiogenes

77 ) (Kras/Irs-1(-/-)) mice displayed increased tumor burden and mortality compared with controls.

78 nd ganciclovir, all animals showed decreased tumor burden and no mortality during the study.

79 were treated with JQ1 before evaluation for tumor burden and overall survival.

80 ic and prognostic biomarkers associated with tumor burden and patient survival.

81 pical C E Ferulic decreased tumor number and tumor burden and prevented the development of malignant

82 animal models of cholangiocarcinoma reduced tumor burden and proliferation.

83 del of MLL-AF9-driven leukemogenesis reduced tumor burden and prolonged host survival.

84 topic AML patient-derived xenografts reduced tumor burden and prolonged overall survival without affe

85 s with low UBB levels dramatically decreased tumor burden and prolonged survival.

86 e marrow niche in vivo, along with decreased tumor burden and prolonged survival.

87 n28b and conditional Lin28b deletion reduced tumor burden and prolonged survival.

88 Dicer deletion in lymphomas in vivo reduced tumor burden and prolonged survival.

89 rum levels are significantly associated with tumor burden and related clinical features in newly diag

90 ment can provide real-time information about tumor burden and response to therapy, noninvasive genomi

91 ibility of using these indices for assessing tumor burden and response to treatment in patients with

92 treatment with our PU.1 inhibitors decreased tumor burden and resulted in increased survival.

93 t in the marrow and spleen leading to higher tumor burden and shorter survival.

94 (sECM) encapsulated SC-ENb-TRAIL alleviates tumor burden and significantly increases survival.

95 s C/EBPalpha expression successfully reduces tumor burden and simultaneously improves liver function

96 rovides the opportunity to detect changes in tumor burden and to monitor response to treatment.

97 n detect advanced breast cancer, and monitor tumor burden and treatment response in women with metast

98 n, and invasion in vitro, along with reduced tumor burden and tumor growth in vivo In conclusion, our

99 t, high-dose LPS (10 mug/mouse) reduced lung tumor burden and was associated with a greater influx of

100 ta3 nanoparticles in vivo alleviated primary tumor burden and, more importantly, significantly inhibi

101 nhibitors of IDO1 and IDO1-/- mice had lower tumor burdens and reduced proliferation in the neoplasti

102 ficant when other prognostic markers, grade, tumor burden, and CgA were included.

103 oma cells enabled longer survival, a smaller tumor burden, and less osteolytic lesions, as compared w

104 ool restored normal marrow function, reduced tumor burden, and prolonged survival.

105 cer cell proliferation in vitro and decrease tumor burden, and that accelerated tumor cell growth app

106 tus (Karnofsky performance scale score), the tumor burden, and the baseline neuron-specific enolase l

107 ed, in association with disease progression, tumor burden, and volume of ascites.

108 hanisms by which AR-targeted therapy reduces tumor burden are largely unknown.

109 sk factors influencing the wide variation in tumor burden are poorly understood.

110 Ab activity can be saturated or exhausted if tumor burdens are high, thus substantially compromising

111 Total tumor burden as estimated by PET/MR imaging correlated w

112 Tumor burden, as determined by bioluminescence, was decr

113 D8(+) T cells, were required for the reduced tumor burden, as were NK1.1(+) cells, found in increased

114 Although chemotherapy reduces tumor burden at early stages, it tends to have limited e

115 IMP2 exhibit a longer lifespan and a reduced tumor burden at old age.

116 ogression was defined as >/= 25% increase in tumor burden at week 12 (early) or any assessment after

117 ablative chemotherapy to specifically reduce tumor burden before CTL injection prevented CTL deletion

118 Dicer in the same model also reduces primary tumor burden, but induces a more locally invasive phenot

119 rated and defined as the skeletal metastatic tumor burden by 2 parameters: total lesion fluoride upta

120 netin decreased mortality, tumor number, and tumor burden by 62%, 35%, and 59%, respectively.

121 NT157 causes a substantial reduction in tumor burden by affecting cancer cells, cancer-associate

122 We show that inhibition of Notch2 reduces tumor burden by eliminating highly malignant HCC- and CC

123 Cancer therapy reduces tumor burden by killing tumor cells, yet it simultaneous

124 uantitative imaging biomarker for whole-body tumor burden, capable of standardizing quantitative chan

125 the HuR gene caused a three-fold decrease in tumor burden characterized by reduced proliferation, inc

126 model was used to generate the nomogram from tumor burden, cirrhosis, performance status (PS) and pri

127 /c.Mdr2(-/-) developed earlier, with greater tumor burden compared to FVB.Mdr2(-/-).

128 ically decreased tumor latency and increased tumor burden compared with BRAF(V600E) alone.

129 h Apc (Min/+) mice, had increased intestinal tumor burden compared with littermate Apc (Min/+) mice.

130 c4(-/-) mice exhibited significantly reduced tumor burden compared with WT mice assessed in a colitis

131 hat acute IL-25 blockade resulted in greater tumor burdens compared to isotype control treated mice.

132 c(Min/+) mice increased tumor stem cells and tumor burden, compared with controls.

133 Those with a greater tumor burden, confined to the liver, and who are free of

134 motherapeutic docetaxel, we showed that bone tumor burden could be reduced significantly with less bo

135 Tumor burden decreased by 80% (P = 0.003) with a 40% red

136 pothesized that high-intensity LT of primary tumor burden, defined as the receipt of radical cystecto

137 We found that BCNS individuals with low tumor burden demonstrated significantly fewer UV signatu

138 To investigate whether whole-liver enhancing tumor burden [ETB] can serve as an imaging biomarker and

139 liver-specific deletion of Lin28a/b reduced tumor burden, extended latency, and prolonged survival.

140 ed during follow-up, but in nine of them the tumor burden extent contraindicated liver transplantatio

141 gible patients with previously untreated low-tumor burden FL received four doses of rituximab, and re

142 In low-tumor burden FL, a re-treatment strategy uses less ritux

143 In low-tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL), maintenance ritux

144 ession and early death among those with high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (FL) is unsatisfactory

145 Residual tumor burden following treatment of ALK or ROS1(+) lung

146 nalysis; infiltrative morphologic structure, tumor burden greater than 50%, portal vein invasion, and

147 mor-reactive T cells can successfully reduce tumor burden; however, in rare cases, lethal on-target/o

148 rvival in preclinical GBM models by reducing tumor burden, improving normalization, and altering TAMs

149 1b(+)Ly6G(-)Ly6C(high) M-MDSCs, with reduced tumor burden in 4T1-Neu tumor-bearing mice.

150 or intravenous routes significantly reduced tumor burden in a chemically induced mouse model of colo

151 iting the COX/5-LOX pathways in vivo reduced tumor burden in a manner associated with reduced cell pr

152 hermore, we demonstrate that ATN-224 reduced tumor burden in a mouse model of NSCLC.

153 orable pharmacokinetic profile and decreases tumor burden in a mouse model of triple-negative breast

154 restored Nischarin expression and decreased tumor burden in a mouse xenograft model of human mammary

155 KO T cells resulted in significantly reduced tumor burden in a murine B-cell lymphoma model.

156 ation of PAC-1 and 1541B effectively reduces tumor burden in a murine lymphoma model at dosages for w

157 imetic, ABT-199, reduced tumor formation and tumor burden in a murine model of cholangiocarcinoma.

158 systems, where therapeutic targeting reduced tumor burden in a PDGFR-dependent manner with effects on

159 Moreover, Nano-CUR effectively reduced the tumor burden in a pre-clinical orthotopic mouse model of

160 In vivo, the quantum rattles reduced tumor burden in a single course of photothermal therapy

161 Liver fibrosis, portal pressure, and hepatic tumor burden in BALB/c.Mdr2(-/-) mice were studied up to

162 reduced splenomegaly, liver tumor spots, and tumor burden in BLCL-engrafted immunodeficient NOD-SCID/

163 tumor immune environment may have mitigated tumor burden in Cbx3/HP1gamma-insufficient mice or wild

164 AIM2 reduced Akt activation and tumor burden in colorectal cancer models, while an Akt i

165 imal ligand providing effective reduction of tumor burden in experimental animal models.

166 ging at earlier time points showed increased tumor burden in GKO/KPC mice.

167 receptor 120 (GPR120), the FOD reduced Py230 tumor burden in GPR120-deficient mice to a similar degre

168 Normalization of YAP1 expression reduces tumor burden in human ERMS xenografts and allows YAP1-dr

169 Interestingly, IR therapy had no effect on tumor burden in IFNgammaKO mice.

170 d cell death in AML cells, and it suppressed tumor burden in leukemic cell lines and primary patient

171 ted tracer that allows for quantification of tumor burden in lymph nodes.

172 tudy underlines the prognostic impact of the tumor burden in metastatic colorectal disease.

173 logic behavior or aggressiveness rather than tumor burden in metastatic NSCLC.

174 ignificantly enhanced survival and decreased tumor burden in mice pretreated with Ald-Bort-NPs versus

175 and genetic deletion of Sam68 dampens colon tumor burden in mice.

176 ll immunity to provide a marked reduction in tumor burden in multiple models of pre-existing malignan

177 he B7H6-specific BiTE therapy also decreased tumor burden in murine melanoma and ovarian cancer model

178 Reduction of LRH-1 diminishes tumor burden in murine models of CRC; however, it is not

179 The added tumor burden in mutant mice was dependent on tumor necro

180 peptide or with specific antibodies reduces tumor burden in orthotopic mouse models of human neurobl

181 rovide a comprehensive measure of whole-body tumor burden in patients with metastatic prostate cancer

182 assical monocytes correlates with metastatic tumor burden in patients.

183 okine release syndrome (CRS) and preinfusion tumor burden in pediatric ALL.

184 CL1-driven murine leukemogenesis reduced the tumor burden in peripheral blood and spleen and led to a

185 on revealed striking three-fold increases in tumor burden in Smad3(+/-) mice, with a three-fold incre

186 y the most widely used radiotracer to assess tumor burden in the brain.

187 SRI31277 reduced tumor burden in the immune competent 5TGM1 myeloma model

188 ad in vivo, which also significantly reduced tumor burden in the liver and brain.

189 duction of TGFbeta, resulting in upregulated tumor burden in the lung.

190 ce resulted in a 75% reduction in metastatic tumor burden in the lungs with a 3.6-fold decrease in ce

191 del, and STO-609 treatment regresses hepatic tumor burden in this model.

192 ive index and leads to a twofold increase in tumor burden in treated mice.

193 ing ACSS2 exhibit a significant reduction in tumor burden in two different models of hepatocellular c

194 GFR inhibitor was able to effectively reduce tumor burden in vivo and block c-MET pTyr(1349)-mediated

195 This platform more effectively reduced tumor burden in vivo when compared to free drug and trad

196 increased cell death in vitro, and decreased tumor burden in vivo, compared with targeting either mut

197 s of treatment in terms of tumor weights and tumor burden in vivo.

198 mosensitive liposomes can potentially reduce tumor burden in vivo.

199 , found that they were effective at reducing tumor burden in vivo.

200 g Colon38, a colon adenocarcinoma, decreases tumor burden in wild-type animals.

201 and adaptive immune cells to eliminate large tumor burdens in syngeneic tumor models and a geneticall

202 complete loss of SEPP1 substantially reduced tumor burden, in part due to increased apoptosis.

203 esponse may provide a sensitive biomarker of tumor burden, in particular through the use of SPECT/PET

204 e established that high CAR-T cell doses and tumor burden increase the risks of severe cytokine relea

205 Finally, the reduced tumor burden, increased numbers of NK cells in the lung,

206 Skeletal tumor burden indices (TLF10 and FTV10) derived from fluo

207 Tumor burden indices derived from whole-body summation o

208 verage SUV of disease (Mean10), and skeletal tumor burden indices of total fluoride skeletal metastat

209 organized tumor dynamics and patient-derived tumor burden information.

210 The reduced tumor burden is paralleled by increased expression of th

211 ul assessment of the amount of the lymphoma (tumor burden), its behavior (extent of invasion or speci

212 ), disease distribution (unilobar, bilobar), tumor burden (</=50%, 50%), portal vein invasion (presen

213 eline characteristics identified high marrow tumor burden, lymphodepletion using cyclophosphamide and

214 Overall tumor burden may be an important prognostic factor for t

215 ant correlation between predicted and actual tumor burden measurements (Pearson r = 0.5658, P < 0.000

216 1 patients maintained stable oscillations of tumor burdens; median TTP is at least 27 months with red

217 -1 expression, which correlated with reduced tumor burden; mice with platinum-resistant tumors retain

218 ce with JAK inhibitors significantly reduced tumor burden, most notably in the IRS-1-deficient group.

219 signaling (phospho-Smad 2) in bone sections, tumor burden, mouse IL-6, and osteoclasts, increased ost

220 Performance status, no more than 25% tumor burden, no extrahepatic metastases, albumin greate

221 Despite a reduced primary tumor burden, Notch activation in Pten-null mice promote

222 core of less than or equal to 70%, a hepatic tumor burden of greater than or equal to 25%, and a base

223 Tumor burden of mice in a FLT3 TKI-resistant transplant

224 Survival and tumor burden of mice in several FLT3/ITD transplantation

225 l angiomyolipomas (AML) with estimated total tumor burden of more than 8 kg which is to the best of o

226 ATRA also reduced tumor burden of mutant IDH1 AML cells xenografted in NOD

227 The tumor burden of SCC was reduced during the 2-year follow

228 Pretherapeutic tumor burden of the liver greater than 50% or more (P< 0

229 with weight losses of only 1.2% to 2.7% and tumor burdens of only approximately 79 to 170 mm(3).

230 Skeletal tumor burden on baseline fluoride PET/CT is a predictive

231 e of the quantitative assessment of skeletal tumor burden on bone scintigraphy (Bone Scan Index [BSI]

232 therapy response, as determined by residual tumor burden on pathology, were evaluated.

233 ng OPTN criteria were found to have T2 stage tumor burden on pathology.

234 ((223)Ra) and to determine whether skeletal tumor burden on whole-body (18)F-fluoride PET/CT can be

235 the same actual MELD score, irrespective of tumor burden or serum level of alpha-fetoprotein.

236 ression demonstrated sustained reductions in tumor burden or stabilization in the size of target lesi

237 in a statistically significant difference in tumor burden or survival distributions compared to treat

238 tumor tissue within each segment (segmental tumor burden, or STB) as determined by histopathology (S

239 solely requires the knowledge of a patient's tumor burden over multiple time points to reveal microsc

240 HCC, tumor morphologic structure (P = .022), tumor burden (P < .001), main portal vein invasion (P =

241 ther liver tumors, tumor size (P = .001) and tumor burden (P = .003) were significantly associated wi

242 ups were sacrificed due to a recurrent large tumor burden (P = 0.0066).

243 nsufficient antitumor response in these high-tumor-burden patients.

244 uding age, tumor origin, performance status, tumor burden, plasma chromogranin A (>/=600 mug/L), neur

245 Larger tumor burden, poorer residual liver function, more frequ

246 ary tumor, age at radioembolization, hepatic tumor burden, presence of extrahepatic disease, and sex.

247 n vivo (dual-tracer) and ex vivo measures of tumor burden (r = 0.97, P < 0.01), with an ultimate sens

248 of antitumor responses in patients with low tumor burden raised the question of the mechanisms of DC

249 Fifty bone scans were simulated with a tumor burden ranging from low to high disease confluence

250 Thus, tumor burden, rather than CTL affinity or avidity, appea

251 Multiple factors such as total tumor burden, receptor expression levels, and nontarget

252 after a single-dose treatment, a significant tumor burden reduction (>80%) was observed without notic

253 or advanced-stage FL in patients with higher tumor burden requiring treatment.

254 18)F-fluciclovine avidity reflect changes in tumor burden resulting from treatment has not been shown

255 f Ccar2 in the mouse results in an increased tumor burden, suggesting that CCAR2 may in fact function

256 ed immune suppression caused by an unrelated tumor burden, supporting the idea that in vivo, myeloid

257 Patients with a >/= 10% reduction in tumor burden (TB) after four cycles had sunitinib held,

258 latency and an approximately 10-fold greater tumor burden than DMBA/TPA-treated WT-controls.

259 Clinical responders did not have a lower tumor burden than nonresponders pretreatment, suggesting

260 ug PEG-b-PCL micelles had significantly less tumor burden than paclitaxel based on bioluminescence im

261 mes, delayed onset of PDAC, and a lower PDAC tumor burdens than KPC mice; loss of fascin did not affe

262 nge, and greater correlation with changes in tumor burden, than did CA 15-3 or circulating tumor cell

263 are diagnosed as having a large intraocular tumor burden that requires intensive ocular-salvage trea

264 which directly correlated with a decrease in tumor burden that was not a result of direct cytotoxic e

265 p53 and proliferative arrest, which reduced tumor burden that was partly relieved by p53 deletion.

266 t MTV and TLG provide a potential measure of tumor burden to aid in risk stratification of early unfa

267 tic breast cancer requires monitoring of the tumor burden to determine the response to treatment, and

268 ) demonstrate that continuous dosing reduces tumor burden to the same extent as weekly IP bolus drug

269 about the fraction of TICs from macroscopic tumor burden trajectories could not be inferred.

270 Interestingly, despite reduced tumor burden, TRAMP x WSB/EiJ males had an increased nod

271 ; (ii) a NASH signature that correlates with tumor burden: upregulated hepatic elovl6, elevated oleic

272 ing biomarkers for the assessment of osseous tumor burden using (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT and present prelim

273 Down-staging is defined as reduction in the tumor burden using local regional therapy specifically t

274 To quantify initial changes in the vascular tumor burden (VTB), a measure of the area of vascularize

275 Tumor burden was also higher in Aim2(-/-)/Apc(Min/+) tha

276 Tumor burden was assessed by RECIST (version 1.0) after

277 forming NLRs, the increased inflammation and tumor burden was correlated with attenuated levels of IL

278 Subsequently, skeletal tumor burden was determined by generating volumetric dat

279 A significant decrease in tumor burden was evident in the CTNNB1-LNP group versus

280 The hepatic tumor burden was less and the interval from breast cance

281 neal models; tumor uptake in mice with a 3-d tumor burden was more than 2-fold greater than the mice

282 , in a papilloma-prone background, a reduced tumor burden was observed due to precocious keratinocyte

283 Moreover, enhanced intraperitoneal tumor burden was observed in overweight or obese animals

284 In male mice, liver tumor burden was recently found to correlate with sugar

285 lung tumors derived from H1650 SP cells and tumor burden was reduced to only 19% of controls.

286 Efficient eradication of small tumor burdens was achieved by high- or low-affinity CTL.

287 However, ACT against large tumor burdens was unsuccessful, accompanied by CTL delet

288 marked at 12 weeks and adjusted for baseline tumor burden were fit for each phase II trial: absolute

289 ction, the number and size of tumors and the tumor burden were significantly higher in Cebpalpha(Delt

290 study: bone scan simulations with predefined tumor burdens were created to assess accuracy and precis

291 ch were evident as a small subset of overall tumor burden, were not affected by beta-catenin suppress

292 -deficient mice show significantly less lung tumor burden when compared with its heterozygous control

293 HC class II expression and induced decreased tumor burden when inoculated s.c. with Lewis lung carcin

294 nly), leading to euthanasia due to excessive tumor burden, whereas 10 of 10 complete responses were o

295 levels (P < 0.0001) as a surrogate marker of tumor burden, whereas SUVmax (P = 0.22) or SUVmean (P =

296 of the let-7 microRNA reduces LIN28-induced tumor burden, while silencing of LIN28 expression reduce

297 Determination of skeletal tumor burden with 18F-fluoride PET/CT is feasible and hi

298 dy was to define a method to assess skeletal tumor burden with 18F-labeled sodium fluoride PET/CT (18

299 lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), both by reducing tumor burden with immunochemotherapy and by lenalidomide

300 astasis may provide a sensitive biomarker of tumor burden, with a tumor detection threshold lying bet