ライフサイエンスコーパス: tumor load

1 increase virus production, further reducing tumor load.

2 murafenib and an autophagy inhibitor reduced tumor load.

3 pondingly reduced both primary and secondary tumor load.

4 liver remnant to enable resection of massive tumor load.

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

6 e smaller in patients with higher metastatic tumor load.

7 ymph node metastases was consistent with SLN tumor load.

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

9 vivo blocks myofiber atrophy in response to tumor load.

10 mitting both detection and quantification of tumor load.

11 ant reduction in lung tumor multiplicity and tumor load.

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

13 a significant reduction of tumor growth and 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 ad succumbed to prostate cancer or had heavy tumor loads.

21 ion becomes significant only with very large tumor loads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29 Tumor load and tumor frequency in mice that underwent sh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 Hepatic tumor load before liver transplantation, time from prima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

55 2 alleles promoted 166 and 441% increases in tumor load in the small intestine, respectively, acceler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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