14508 results for "PLOS+ONE+Pennsylvania+German+ACS+language+code+pdc+open+access+study"

in 15.64 milliseconds.

• Genomic data from analysis of the human placenta, part of the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction study (POPs)

  The Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study is a prospective cohort study of nulliparous women attending the Rosie Hospital (Cambridge, UK) for their dating ultrasound scan. The study included 4512 women with a viable singleton pregnancy; study participants provided written informed consent and were recruited between January 2008 and July 2012. The POP study aimed both at evaluating performance of known biomarkers and serial ultrasonography in assessing maternal and fetal well-being, as well as identifying novel biomarkers. The study is sufficiently large to be powered for relatively uncommon adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women attended four study visits scheduled every 8 weeks, starting with the first trimester. Participants had blood taken during the dating/recruitment visit (at approximately 12 weeks gestation (wkGA)), as well as at three subsequent visits (at ∼20wkGA, ∼28wkGA and ∼36wkGA). For more detail, please visit: https://www.obgyn.cam.ac.uk/research/pops-2/.

  Study EGAS00001002205

• Congenital_Heart_Disease___Pilot

  This pilot study aims to generate pilot data to inform future study designs by resequencing the whole exomes of 10 unrelated individuals diagnosed with Congenital Heart Disease (CHD).

  Study EGAS00001000425

• A GWAS study with the AlpeDPD study cohort

  A genome-wide association study (GWAS) with patients treated with fluoropyrimidines was performed to identify genetic variants linked to the severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity.

  Study EGAS00001007855

• Slim Initiative in Genomic Medicine for the Americas (SIGMA): Diabetes in Mexico Study (DMS)

  The ~52,000 sample Type 2 Diabetes Exome Sequencing project is a collaboration of six consortia with various funding mechanisms that have joined together to investigate genetic variants for type 2 diabetes (T2D) using the largest T2D case/control sample set compiled to date. This includes samples from: Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Exploration by Next-generation sequencing in multi-Ethnic Samples (T2D-GENES) Genetics of Type 2 Diabetes (GoT2D) Exome Sequencing Project (ESP) Slim Initiative in Genomic Medicine for the Americas: Type 2 Diabetes (SIGMA T2D) Lundbeck Foundation Centre for Applied Medical Genomics in Personalised Disease Prediction, Prevention, and Care (LuCAMP) Progress in Diabetes Genetics in Youth (ProDIGY) This data generated from the SIGMA Diabetes in Mexico Study (DMS) was part of the Slim Initiative in Genomic Medicine for the Americas: Type 2 Diabetes (SIGMA T2D), which is an international research consortium funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation that seeks to identify the genetic risk factors for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Mexico and Latin America and translate those findings into improved treatment and prevention of diabetes. The SIGMA T2D project has sequenced and genotyped more than 13,000 samples from Mexican and Mexican Americans. The individuals were obtained from over 20 cohorts across the 6 consortia that are listed in Table 1. The strategy was to perform deep exome sequencing of individuals, 24,991 with T2D and 24,953 controls, divided among five ancestry groups: Europeans, East Asians, South Asians, American Hispanics, and African Americans. The T2D-GENES, ProDIGY and SIGMA studies, sequencing was performed at the Broad Institute using the Agilent v2 capture reagent or Illumina Rapid Capture on Illumina HiSeq machines. Please note that while we summarize the full sample list in publications and below, two of the cohorts below are not in dbGaP, due to the samples not being consented for deposition. This includes the Kooperative Gesundheitsforschung in der Region Augsburg (KORA) study and Lundbeck Foundation Centre for Applied Medical Genomics in Personalised Disease Prediction, Prevention, and Care (LuCamp) study. The Exome Sequencing Project (ESP) was deposited in dbGaP as part of their initial study and the phs numbers for that project can be found here: https://esp.gs.washington.edu/drupal/dbGaP_Releases. Table 1. 52,000 sample T2D Case/Control Whole Exome Sequencing Studies Ancestry Consortia Study Countries of Origin # Cases # Controls African American T2D-GENES Project 1 Jackson Heart Study US 500 526 African American T2D-GENES Project 1 Wake Forest School of Medicine Study US 518 530 African American ESP Exome Sequencing Project (ESP) US 467 1374 African American T2D-GENES Follow up study BioMe Biobank Program (BioMe) US 1297 1256 East Asian T2D-GENES Project 1 Korea Association Research Project Korea 526 561 East Asian T2D-GENES Project 1& Follow up Study Singapore Diabetes Cohort Study; Singapore Prospective Study Program Singapore (Chinese) 1486 1568 East Asian T2D-GENES Follow up study Korea SNUH South Korea 450 475 East Asian T2D-GENES Follow up study Research Studies in Hong Kong (Hong Kong) Hong Kong 493 485 European T2D-GENES Project 1 Ashkenazi US, Israel 506 355 European T2D-GENES Project 1 Metabolic Syndrome in Men Study (METSIM) Finland 484 498 European GoT2D Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) Study Finland 472 476 European GoT2D Kooperative Gesundheitsforschung in der Region Augsburg (KORA) Germany 97 90 European GoT2D UK Type 2 Diabetes Genetics Consortium (UKT2D) UK 322 320 European GoT2D Malmo-Botnia Study Finland, Sweden 478 443 European LuCamp Lundbeck Foundation Centre for Applied Medical Genomics in Personalised Disease Prediction, Prevention, and Care (LuCamp) Denmark 997 997 European ESP Exome Sequencing Project (ESP) US 390 2843 European T2D-GENES Follow up study Genetics of Diabetes and Audit Research Tayside Study (GoDARTS) Scotland, UK 960 966 European T2D-GENES Follow up study Framingham Heart Study (FHS) US 396 596 Hispanic T2D-GENES Project 1 San Antonio Family Heart Study, San Antonio Family Diabetes/ Gallbladder Study, Veterans Administration Genetic Epidemiology Study, and the Investigation of Nephropathy and Diabetes Study Family Component US 272 218 Hispanic T2D-GENES Project 1 & SIGMAv2 Starr County, Texas US 1762 1738 Hispanic SIGMAv1 Mexico City Diabetes Study Mexico 281 549 Hispanic SIGMAv1 & v2 Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) US 1476 1443 Hispanic SIGMAv1 & v2 UNAM/INCMNSZ Diabetes Study (UIDS) Mexico 1998 1977 Hispanic SIGMAv1 & v2 Diabetes in Mexico Study (DMS) Mexico 1522 1546 Multi ethnic ProDIGY Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) US 3097 0 Multi ethnic ProDIGY SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth (SEARCH) US 553 0 South Asian T2D-GENES Project 1 London Life Sciences Population Study (LOLIPOP) UK (Indian Asian) 531 538 South Asian T2D-GENES Project 1 & Follow up study Singapore Indian Eye Study Singapore (Indian Asian) 1640 1478 South Asian T2D-GENES Follow up study Pakistan Genomic Resource (PGR) Pakistan 914 932 The Diabetes in Mexico Study (DMS) study contributed 1,522 cases and 1,546 controls to the 52k T2D exome sequencing study.

  Study phs001388

• ADAPTeR Study: WES data from ccRCC patients

  ADAPTeR study RNAseq from multi-region samples taken pre and post nivolumab.

  Study EGAS00001005638

• Study of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma

  Study of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma

  Study EGAS00001000926

• Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD - Imaging)

  Available DataAction to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-Imaging), provides access to ECG signals data from the ACCORD clinical trial. The clinical phenotyping and outcomes data from the trial are associated with ACCORD-BioLINCC, phs003551.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine if intensive glycemic control, multiple lipid management and intensive blood pressure control could prevent major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Secondary hypotheses included treatment differences in other cardiovascular outcomes, total mortality, microvascular outcomes, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.BackgroundGlycemia Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at rates two to four times higher than non-diabetic populations of similar demographic characteristics. They also experience increased rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. With the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States, CVD associated with type 2 diabetes is expected to become an even greater public health challenge in the coming decades than it is now. Expected increases in event rates will be associated with a concomitant rise in suffering and resource utilization.The ACCORD study investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors when compared to standard therapy (HbA1c between 7.0% and 7.9%). A separate analysis investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in these patients.Lipid Therapy Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease attributable, in part, to associated risk factors such as dyslipidemia. This is characterized by elevated plasma triglyceride levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. The ACCORD Lipid Therapy trial was designed to test the effect of a therapeutic strategy that uses a fibrate to raise HDL-C and lower triglyceride levels and uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C reduce the rate of CVD events compared to a strategy that only uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes that were at high risk for cardiovascular disease.Blood Pressure Trial:Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of cardiovascular disease at every level of systolic blood pressure. Because cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes is graded and continuous across the entire range of levels of systolic blood pressure, even at prehypertensive levels, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommended beginning drug treatment in patients with diabetes who have systolic blood pressures of 130 mm Hg or higher, with a treatment goal of reducing systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg. There is, however, a paucity of evidence from randomized clinical trials to support these recommendations. The ACCORD Blood Pressure trial tested the effect of a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular events among high-risk persons with type 2 diabetes compared to a strategy that targeted a SBP of EYE Substudy:Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. The ACCORD EYE Substudy evaluated the effects of the ACCORD medical strategies on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in a subgroup of trial patients.MIND Substudy:Studies suggest that older persons with type 2 diabetes have at least twice the likelihood of developing late-life cognitive impairment or dementia compared to those without. The mechanisms underlying these cognitive disorders are increasingly thought to reflect a mixed pathology pattern with contributions from vascular, neurodegenerative and neurovascular processes. Pathophysiological mechanisms that have been described include inflammation, oxidative stress, energy imbalance, protein misfolding, glucocorticoid-mediated effects and differences in genetic susceptibilities. The ACCORD MIND substudy took as a premise that early intervention with the ACCORD therapeutic strategies to improve glycemic control could mitigate the adverse effects of type 2 diabetes on the brain.Subjects10,251 patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7.5% or more participated in the trial. Of these patients, 5518 were assigned to the lipid therapy arm and 4733 to the blood pressure arm. EYE Substudy:A subgroup of 2856 patients was evaluated for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Patients who, at baseline, had a history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy that had been treated with laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy were excluded.MIND Substudy:A subgroup of 2977 patients was evaluated for cognitive function and brain volume. The ACCORD MIND substudy excluded patients aged DesignPatients were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glycemic control (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level EYE Substudy:EYE Substudy patients were evaluated at two standardized and comprehensive eye examinations for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy.MIND Substudy:The cognitive primary outcome, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, was assessed at baseline, 20 and 40 months. Total brain volume (TBV), the primary brain structure outcome, was assessed with MRI at baseline and 40 months in a sub-set of 632 patients. All patients with follow-up data were included in the primary analyses.ConclusionsGlycemia Trial:As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. (NEJM. 2008; 358(24): 2545-59).Microvascular Outcomes of the Glycemia Trial:Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the risk of increased total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and higher risk for severe hypoglycemia. (Lancet. 2010; 376(9739): 419-30)Lipid Therapy Trial:The combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, as compared with simvastatin alone. These results do not support the routine use of combination therapy with fenofibrate and simvastatin to reduce cardiovascular risk in the majority of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (NEJM. 2010; 362(17): 1563–1574).Blood Pressure Trial:In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events (NEJM. 2010; 362: 1575-1585).EYE Substudy:Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy (NEJM. 2010; 363: 233-244).MIND Substudy:Although significant differences in TBV favored the intensive therapy, cognitive outcomes were not different. Combined with the unfavorable effects on other ACCORD outcomes, MIND findings do not support using intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabetes on the brain in patients similar to MIND patients (Lancet Neurol. 2011; 10(11): 969–977).

  Study phs003562

• Shanghai Breast Cancer Genetics Study (SBCGS)

  The Shanghai Breast Cancer Genetics Study (SBCGS) includes data from four population-based studies conducted among Chinese women in urban Shanghai: the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study (SBCS), the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study (SBCSS), the Shanghai Women's Health Study (SWHS), and the Shanghai Endometrial Cancer Study (SECS, contributing controls only). Shanghai Breast Cancer Study (SBCS): The SBCS is a population-based, case-control study conducted in urban Shanghai. Subject recruitment in the initial phase of the SBCS (SBCS-I) was conducted between August 1996 and March 1998. The second phase (SBCS-II) of recruitment occurred between April 2002 and February 2005. Breast cancer cases were identified through the population-based Shanghai Cancer Registry and supplemented by a rapid case-ascertainment system. Controls were randomly selected using the Shanghai Resident Registry. Approximately 3500 cases and 3500 controls were recruited in the study. Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study (SBCSS) and Shanghai Endometrial Cancer Study (SECS): The SBCSS also used the population-based Shanghai Cancer Registry to identify newly diagnosed breast cancer cases. A total of 5,046 breast cancer patients were recruited. In-person interviews were conducted to collect information on known breast cancer risk factors and anthropometrics by using protocols and questionnaires similar to those used in the SBCS. For genetic studies, controls for the SBCSS cases came from the SECS, which recruited healthy women between January 1997 and December 2003. With the exception of a few questions related specifically to breast or endometrial cancer risk, the questionnaires used in the SECS and the SBCS were very similar. Shanghai Women's Health Study (SWHS): The SWHS is a population-based prospective cohort study of approximately 75,000 adult women who were recruited between 1997 and 2000. The cohort has been followed by a combination of record linkage and active follow-ups. Breast cancer patients identified in the SWHS and non-cases were included in the current study.

  Study phs001088

• Shanghai Breast Cancer Genetics Study (SBCGS)

  The Shanghai Breast Cancer Genetics Study (SBCGS) includes data from four population-based studies conducted among Chinese women in urban Shanghai: the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study (SBCS), the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study (SBCSS), the Shanghai Women's Health Study (SWHS), and the Shanghai Endometrial Cancer Study (SECS, contributing controls only). Shanghai Breast Cancer Study (SBCS): The SBCS is a population-based, case-control study conducted in urban Shanghai. Subject recruitment in the initial phase of the SBCS (SBCS-I) was conducted between August 1996 and March 1998. The second phase (SBCS-II) of recruitment occurred between April 2002 and February 2005. Breast cancer cases were identified through the population-based Shanghai Cancer Registry and supplemented by a rapid case-ascertainment system. Controls were randomly selected using the Shanghai Resident Registry. Approximately 3500 cases and 3500 controls were recruited in the study. Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study (SBCSS) and Shanghai Endometrial Cancer Study (SECS): The SBCSS also used the population-based Shanghai Cancer Registry to identify newly diagnosed breast cancer cases. A total of 5,046 breast cancer patients were recruited. In-person interviews were conducted to collect information on known breast cancer risk factors and anthropometrics by using a protocol and questionnaire similar to those used in the SBCS. For genetic studies, controls for the SBCSS cases came from the SECS, which recruited healthy women between January 1997 and December 2003. With the exception of a few questions related specifically to breast or endometrial cancer risk, the questionnaires used in the SECS and the SBCS were very similar. Shanghai Women's Health Study (SWHS): The SWHS is a population-based prospective cohort study of approximately 75,000 adult women who were recruited between 1997 and 2000. The cohort has been followed by a combination of record linkage and active follow-ups. Breast cancer patients identified in the SWHS and non-cases were included in the current study.

  Study phs000799

• Characterization of individual foci of multicentric/multifocal breast cancer using targeted next generation sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the ?quadrants? of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients? survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001000624