ライフサイエンスコーパス: tumor burden

1 inflammation, hepatocyte proliferation, and tumor burden.

2 itionally, endothelial TAK1 deletion reduces tumor burden.

3 CP6 expression was associated with increased tumor burden.

4 mice develop larger tumors and have a higher tumor burden.

5 han targeting private events in reducing the tumor burden.

6 significantly reduced peritoneal metastatic tumor burden.

7 parameters for quantification of whole-body tumor burden.

8 xtent of epithelial hyperplasia and a larger tumor burden.

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

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

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

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

13 nation with gemcitabine, strongly diminishes tumor burden.

14 n conferred a significant reduction in their tumor burden.

15 ells, which collectively reduced the primary tumor burden.

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

17 iquid biopsy has shown promise in monitoring tumor burden.

18 ly correlated with clinical cancer stage and tumor burden.

19 inib confer further benefits in reduction of tumor burden.

20 c through Aurora A kinase inhibition reduces tumor burden.

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

22 nhibited osteoclastogenesis without altering tumor burden.

23 ng U87 necrosis, effectively reducing viable tumor burden.

24 enesis, whereas atRA supplementation reduced tumor burden.

25 significantly earlier due to rapidly growing tumor burden.

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

27 ant reductions in both intratumoral CSCs and tumor burden.

28 etion of Hdac3 in vivo significantly reduced tumor burden.

29 , because Notch3 inhibition did not decrease tumor burden.

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

31 r control, leading to a massive reduction in tumor burden.

32 tion of CRC promoting genes, and reduces CRC tumor burden.

33 with ganglioneuroma effectively reduced the tumor burden.

34 rdance of fusion calls in patients with high tumor burden.

35 the lung is involved centrally in promoting tumor burden.

36 a more accurate estimation of the total lung tumor burden.

37 ulated thiostrepton, leads to a reduction in tumor burden.

38 hocytes (TILs) concomitant with an increased tumor burden.

39 oses were observed in patients with a higher tumor burden.

40 oliferation and angiogenesis, and diminishes tumor burden.

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

42 The tumor burden according to (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT was compare

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

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

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

46 so significant decrease in the orthotopic MB tumor burden after systemic administration of JQ1 loaded

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

48 urement of EGFR expression across the entire tumor burden and allow for dynamic monitoring of cetuxim

49 ntransgenic mice (controls) and analyzed for tumor burden and by histology.

50 Monitoring tumor burden and clonal evolution using sequencing provi

51 the IRE1alpha-inhibitor 4mu8C, which reduced tumor burden and collagen deposition.

52 Pharmacologic inhibition of LOX reduced tumor burden and collagen remodeling in murine omental m

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 ination with Taxol significantly reduced the tumor burden and delayed tumor recurrence compared to Ta

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

57 Tumor burden and expression of proliferative and angioge

58 bcc4 in primary tumors significantly reduced tumor burden and extended the lifespan of tumor-bearing

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

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

61 esulted in a significant decrease in overall tumor burden and growth rate, as well as a delayed forma

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

63 logical population model, fitted to clinical tumor burden and immune cell abundance data from each pa

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

65 Reduced tumor burden and improved survival were observed in ARID

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

67 range of cancers, resulting in reductions in tumor burden and increased long-term survival in subsets

68 MCP-1 antibody significantly decreased tumor burden and increased survival of mice in vivo.

69 erapeutic efficacy of paclitaxel by reducing tumor burden and increasing the number of tumor-associat

70 The cervical LNs had a greater tumor burden and infiltration of MDSC and M2 macrophages

71 a (MFS), but no useful biomarkers reflecting tumor burden and infiltrative growth are available.

72 nt a concern in patients with high metabolic tumor burden and inflammatory indexes at baseline.

73 nt a concern in patients with high metabolic tumor burden and inflammatory indices at baseline.

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

75 ed expression of Aqp7 caused reduced primary tumor burden and lung metastasis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

84 animal models of cholangiocarcinoma reduced tumor burden and proliferation.

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

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

87 a single infusion of human CAR-Ms decreased tumor burden and prolonged overall survival.

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

89 n cancer mouse model, resulting in decreased tumor burden and prolonged survival.

90 bition of PAK1 significantly reduced overall tumor burden and reduced the average size of brain metas

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

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

93 time, alpha-fetoprotein response to LRT, and tumor burden and results in excellent post-LT outcomes,

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

95 atumoral dose of surfen demonstrated reduced tumor burden and spread compared with untreated controls

96 tistical analysis of intraperitoneal OVASC-1 tumor burden and survival rates in mice shows that the a

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

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

99 significantly increased survival, decreased tumor burden, and caused recruitment of activated (IFNga

100 using the blast count, which underestimates tumor burden, and could allow for early detection of dis

101 tified history of postembolization syndrome, tumor burden, and drug-eluting embolic chemoembolization

102 ic pain (P < .001), of which history of PES, tumor burden, and drug-eluting embolic TACE were identif

103 , Child-Pugh score, alpha-fetoprotein level, tumor burden, and HCC treatment modality.

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

105 dentify relationships between absorbed dose, tumor burden, and patient physiology.

106 nd were significantly associated with higher tumor burden, and poor prognosis, suggesting their relev

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

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

109 3 inhibition caused significant reduction of tumor burden as well as L-MDSC frequencies due to decrea

110 Tumor burden, as determined by bioluminescence, was decr

111 emiautomatic software package for whole-body tumor burden assessment in prostate cancer patients usin

112 Higher tumor burden at diagnosis was associated with impaired b

113 velop a "metastasis sensor" for detection of tumor burden at distal sites.

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

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

116 ia and (2) "all-comers" (AC-DS) with initial tumor burden beyond UNOS-DS criteria versus patients alw

117 therapy has been reported to not only reduce tumor burden but also enhance local antitumor immunity i

118 ase inhibitors, such as vemurafenib, reduces tumor burden, but these tumors frequently acquire resist

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

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

121 therapy is to maintain a controllable stable tumor burden by allowing a significant population of tre

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

123 Chemotherapy reduces tumor burden by inducing cell death; however, the result

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

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

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

127 ieved significantly improved amelioration of tumor burden compared to free triptolide.

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

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 The increased tumor burden correlates with impaired DNA mismatch repai

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

136 patients, and once the peak level is reached tumor burden decreases, similar to models of predator-pr

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

138 atients should be considered in light of HCC tumor burden, degree of liver dysfunction, life expectan

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

140 The 2 patients with the highest liver tumor burden died within 6 mo of treatment, with treatme

141 ombining MTV with a parameter reflecting the tumor burden dissemination further improves DLBCL patien

142 olely based on the macroscopic trajectory of tumor burden during treatment.

143 We compared the traditional tumor burden estimation performed manually with H&E hist

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

145 t the outcome of DS in patients with initial tumor burden exceeding the UCSF-DS criteria, defined as

146 Our results suggest that an upper limit in tumor burden exists beyond which successful LT after DS

147 gnificant association between HPD status and tumor burden, expressed by both MTV (756.1ml for HPD vs

148 gnificant association between HPD status and tumor burden, expressed by both TLG (756.1 cm(3) for HPD

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

150 ore initiating therapy in patients with high tumor burden FL.

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

152 years of age) with previously untreated high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma were nonrandomly assign

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

154 Previously untreated patients with high tumor burden grade 1-3a FL received obinutuzumab- or rit

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

156 production in the LTB state than in the high tumor burden (HTB) state on a per-cell basis, reflecting

157 vitro for cell proliferation and in vivo for tumor burden, immune composition, cytokine expression, a

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

159 lusion: Semiautomatic analyses of whole-body tumor burden in (68)Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT is feasible.

160 thermore, NTAL-KD in NB4 cells decreased the tumor burden in (NOD scid gamma) NSG mice, suggesting it

161 1b(+)Ly6G(-)Ly6C(high) M-MDSCs, with reduced tumor burden in 4T1-Neu tumor-bearing mice.

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

163 quent and lower doses of chemotherapy reduce tumor burden in a low proliferative tumor while lower do

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

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

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

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

168 4 (BMS309403) not only significantly reduced tumor burden in a syngeneic orthotopic mouse model but a

169 f 78 mug mL(-1) and 44.7+/-4.8 % decrease of tumor burden in an orthotopic model of colon cancer via

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

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

172 tumors, we observed significant reduction in tumor burden in both local and metastatic compartments a

173 more sensitive method to detect and monitor tumor burden in cancer, specifically in GBM, where curre

174 t of testosterone effectively normalized the tumor burden in castrated male mice.

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

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

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

178 h as those seen in patients with circulating tumor burden in leukemic phase disease.

179 suggests that MRI may more accurately assess tumor burden in longitudinal monitoring of orthotopic co

180 triol treatment increased CYP24A1 levels and tumor burden in Lsl-KRAS(G12D) mice.

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

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

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

184 rous ovarian cancer cells reduced metastatic tumor burden in mice.

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

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

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

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

189 ing tumor DNA analysis to detect and monitor tumor burden in patient-derived orthotopic xenografts of

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

191 assical monocytes correlates with metastatic tumor burden in patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

198 e in vivo target engagement and reduction of tumor burden in three mouse xenograft models driven by e

199 Our method overestimates the tumor burden in tumors surrounded by abnormal tissue, wh

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

201 DM93 melanoma in vitro, and decreased B16-F1 tumor burden in vivo.

202 es on Wnt/betacatenin signaling for enhanced tumor burden in xenograft models.

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

204 -/-) mice demonstrated increased colitis and tumor burden; in contrast, disease severity in Kaiso(-/-

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

206 not PKP3, in B16-AAD significantly increased tumor burden, increased VEGF-A, reduced IL-33, and enhan

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

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

209 Increased tumor burden is associated with inferior outcomes in man

210 ts with smaller tumors, even when pathologic tumor burden is considered.

211 Quantifying tumor burden is important for following the natural hist

212 hough losartan therapy alone does not reduce tumor burden, it reduces both the incidence and the amou

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

214 er immunoembolization (group B) with hepatic tumor burden less than 50% underwent RE.

215 In addition to tumor burden, liver function and performance status; add

216 sing tumor cell-free DNA to measure systemic tumor burden longitudinally in living mice during drug t

217 n compromised anti-tumor immunity in the low tumor burden (LTB) state in pre-clinical models as well

218 -CT) to estimate the tumor volume of ex vivo tumor-burdened lungs.

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

220 obust CD8(+) T-cell response and decrease in tumor burden, markedly enhancing overall survival.

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

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

223 1 patients maintained stable oscillations of tumor burdens; median TTP is at least 27 months with red

224 y comparing two down-staging groups with (1) tumor burden meeting UNOS down-staging (UNOS-DS) inclusi

225 rs were also increased in the bone marrow of tumor-burdened mice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

242 ignificantly decreased formation of ascites, tumor burden over time, circulating tumor cells, and hep

243 e drug combination also reduced PC xenograft tumor burden (P < 0.05) and the incidence of metastasis

244 ified at univariable analysis included large tumor burden (P = .004), drug-eluting embolic TACE (P =

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

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

247 exosomes or by nanoparticle delivery reduces tumor burden, promotes survival, and restores the cell-k

248 d to enhanced clearance of leukemia or solid tumor burden, providing the first metabolic modification

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

252 oninvasive monitoring of conditions with low tumor burden remains challenging, as the diagnostic sens

253 models leading to >50% and 80% reduction in tumor burden, respectively, and significant increases in

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

255 afety concerns in patients with a high liver tumor burden should inform patient selection for future

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

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

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

259 R6-deficient mice had a significantly higher tumor burden than WT mice and increased tumor progressio

260 Surrogates of tumor burden that are easy to measure, such as the maxim

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

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

263 The WGS approach enabled dynamic tumor burden tracking and postoperative residual disease

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

265 um of PSMA-positive tumor volumes) and total tumor burden (TTB) (sum of all lesion TLUs) were derived

266 eukemic cells reduces spleen and bone marrow tumor burden upon i.v. leukemic engraftment.

267 as corroborated by a significant decrease in tumor burden upon orthotopic implantation of MUC5AC-depl

268 c chemotherapeutics did not increase overall tumor burden upon recurrence.

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

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

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

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

273 (SUV(max) and SUV(mean)) were measured, and tumor burden was analyzed using total tumor volume and t

274 Tumor burden was assessed using the peritoneal cancer in

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

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

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

278 bitor followed by radioiodine treatment, and tumor burden was monitored by ultrasound imaging.

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

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

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

282 Tumor burden was tracked weekly via bioluminescence.

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

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

285 elected tumor gene expression to control for tumor burden, we identified a subgroup of patients with

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

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

288 total tumor volume), and total and enhancing tumor burden (%), were volumetrically assessed on baseli

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

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

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

292 This translated into a stable reduction of tumor burden when mice were treated with a MEK inhibitor

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

294 cient mice displayed a significantly reduced tumor burden, whereas an opposite phenotype was observed

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

296 ected in vivo showed significantly decreased tumor burden, which was associated with reduced immunosu

297 irradiation had similar efficacy in reducing tumor burden while improving intestinal function in a pr

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

299 n tumors resulted in significantly decreased tumor burden with a corresponding increase in survival.

300 or therapeutic macrophage depletion reduces tumor burden without affecting mast cell abundance.