Search Results - EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive

Multi-omic analysis of the tumor microenvironment shows clinical correlations in Ph1 study of atezolizumab +/- SoC in MM

Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease is challenging. There is an unmet need for more targeted therapies in this setting; deep cellular and molecular phenotyping of the tumor and microenvironment in MM could help guide such therapies. This phase 1b study (NCT02431208) evaluated the safety and efficacy of the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 monoclonal antibody atezolizumab (Atezo) alone or in combination with the standard of care (SoC) treatments lenalidomide (Len) or pomalidomide (Pom) and/or daratumumab (Dara) in patients with R/R MM. Study endpoints included incidence of adverse events (AEs) and overall response rate (ORR). A novel unsupervised integrative multi-omic analysis was performed using RNA sequencing, mass cytometry immunophenotyping, and proteomic profiling of baseline and on-treatment bone marrow samples from patients receiving Atezo monotherapy or Atezo+Dara. A similarity network fusion (SNF) algorithm was applied to preprocessed data. Eighty-five patients were enrolled. Treatment-emergent deaths occurred in 2 patients; both deaths were considered unrelated to study treatment. ORRs ranged from 11.1% (Atezo+Len cohorts, n=18) to 83.3% (Atezo+Dara+Pom cohort, n=6). High-dimensional multi-omic profiling of the tumor microenvironment and integrative SNF analysis revealed novel correlations between cellular and molecular features of the tumor and immune microenvironment, patient selection criteria, and clinical outcome. Atezo monotherapy and SoC combinations were safe in this patient population and demonstrated some evidence of clinical efficacy. Integrative analysis of high dimensional genomics and immune data identified novel clinical correlations that may inform patient selection criteria and outcome assessment in future immunotherapy studies for myeloma.

Study EGAS00001007286

Multiple_Malignancy_Familial_Comparison

Patient (who has had multiple malignancies) has previously been found to harbour a pathogenic p53 variant which is probably mosaic. This finding is based on exome sequencing performed elsewhere. In this study we will resequence the locus in question to ascertain whether the variant is indeed mosaic.

Study EGAS00001000333

Synthetic - GDI synthetic data

Synthetic - The Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project is enabling access to genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. It is doing this by establishing a federated, sustainable and secure infrastructure to access the data. In support of FAIRness in data sharing, this dataset is made freely available under the Creative Commons Licence (CC-BY). Please ensure the GDI project (funding: EC H2020 under grant agreement number 101081813) is acknowledged.

Study EGAS50000000678

EXCEED Study

EXCEED is a longitudinal population-based cohort which facilitates investigation of genetic, environmental and lifestyle-related determinants of a broad range of diseases and of multiple morbidity through data collected at baseline and via electronic healthcare record linkage. Recruitment has taken place in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland since 2013 and is ongoing, with approximately 10,000 participants aged 30-69 to date. The population of Leicester is diverse and additional recruitment from the local South Asian community is ongoing.

Study EGAS00001003499

GOSH_Tumour_Embryology_Paediatric_Behjati_RNA_Managed_Access

The aim of the study is to study thyroid development and function, and how this is altered in Down Syndrome and Thyroid Cancer.

Study EGAS00001006737

What is a DAC?

What is a DAC? Given the complexity, scale, and diversity of global submitters and studies, the EGA operates a distributed data access model in which requests are made to the data controller, not to the EGA. The European Commission defines a data controller, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the person that determines the purposes for which and the means by which personal data is processed. A Data Access Committees, commonly referred to as DACs, comprise on or more individuals (or data controllers) that review data access requests and make decisions on who can access personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data deposited at the EGA. Therefore, the members of a DAC should be individuals who have the authority to approve data access requests. The animation describes how you can authorise access to your sensitive data with the help of Data Access Committee and Authorisation tool. Acknowledgement to CSC - IT Center for Finland, Elixir Finland, Elixir Europe. Frequently Asked Questions How can I create a Data Access Committee? How can I create a Data Access Committee? The members of a DAC can come from different areas of expertise, such as data management, data analysis, information technology, legal and compliance, subject matter experts, privacy and security, and representatives from the organisations or individuals that provide data to the DAC. The specific members of a DAC can vary depending on the needs of the organisation and the type of data being managed. The EGA strongly suggests checking with your organisation to align with its regulations How should a DAC be named? The chosen name must be informative to the applicant. For example, internal identifiers, such as grant numbers, should not be used. Individual PI names should also not be used. DAC's are often named after the organisation or department of the data source. Browse the full list of DAC names currently in the EGA. How can I become an EGA DAC contact? To register a DAC at the EGA you must create first as an EGA user. Once your EGA user has been approved by the Helpdesk team, you will be able to log in to the DAC Portal. How can I register a DAC? To register a DAC, follow the DAC Portal instructions. You will be required to provide a DAC name, name of the individual(s) that make up your DAC and contact details for your DAC including your Institutional email(s). Wherever possible, the DAC should make sure that all points of contact are readily available and able to answer any initial data requests/queries in < 2 weeks. Once your DAC is registered, you will have to wait upon the validation from our Helpdesk team. As soon as all the validations have been completed, your DAC will be activated. Alternatively, you can also establish a DAC at the EGA during a programmatic submission through Webin API. Which are the possible roles of a DAC contact? There are two possible roles for DAC contacts: member and admin. An admin has additional privileges compared to a member: An “admin” can manage data requests, create and edit policies, edit the content of the DAC, add or remove contacts, and decide the role of each contact. A “member” can manage data requests and create policies. However, a member does not have permission to modify DAC details, edit information from policies where they are not admins, or add/remove contacts. There is no limit to the number of admins in a DAC, and each admin is responsible for deciding who should have editing privileges. This allows for a more decentralised and democratic approach to managing the DAC. How can I modify the information of a DAC? To modify a DAC, follow the instructions here. Keep in mind that only DAC contact with an admin role can modify the information of a DAC. If your DAC was registered before the lauch of the DAC Portal, and its ID is EGAC0 (not EGAC5), you must use the programmatic submission to modify it. Please, do not hesitate to contact our Helpdesk team if you need help with this! To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What’s the link between DAC, policy and dataset? A dataset is linked to one single policy. At the same time, one policy has a one to one relationship with a DAC. In this example, you can see that in this dataset page, we are only showing the information of one DAC (1 dataset - 1 DAC). However, the ratio of objects does not work the same in the other direction. One DAC can own multiple policy objects. And each policy object can be reused in several datasets. Thus, one DAC can manage one or more datasets. In this example, you can see that in this DAC page, we are showing all the datasets that are managed by one DAC (1 DAC - >400 datasets). EGA Data Access Committee Best Practices Which are the EGA DAC best practices? Refer to DAC Best Practices What happens if a DAC member changes institutions? EGA is committed to the protection and ownership of the data stored in our systems. We respect the institution's ownership of the data, and as such, if a DAC member changes institutions, the ownership of the data will not be transferred to the new institution. Therefore, before changing institutions, we request that the DAC contact add a new member who will replace them once they no longer work at the institution. This ensures that the data remains protected and is accessible to authorised personnel at the institution. To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What happens if EGA detects an unresponsive DAC? EGA defines an unresponsive DAC as a DAC with one or more contacts who do not respond to data access requests. EGA has procedures in place to identify these types of DACs, escalate the issue, and attempt to reassign the DAC to a responsive contact. This is a crucial step in ensuring that data can be accessed and utilised by researchers. If EGA identifies an unresponsive DAC, the organisation will first try to resolve the issue by escalating it to the appropriate parties. This may involve attempting to reassign the DAC to a more responsive contact. Unfortunately, in situations where we cannot reassign the DAC, the dataset will be withdrawn from the public website and the files will be removed from our system. If an EGA ID is referenced in a publication, the EGA will take extra steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the data's unavailability. I don't want to receive an email notification for pending requests. How can I do that? If you are an EGA DAC with pending requests, you will always receive emails for new data access requests. However, the EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! How can I manage data access requests? What documentation does the DAC need to provide? Each dataset that is submitted to the EGA must be linked to a policy object. The policy is a Data Access Agreement (DAA), which defines the terms and conditions of using the dataset, such as how the data files should be stored once downloaded or details of publication embargoes that should be observed by the approved user. As part of the Data Access Agreement, information regarding the application can be captured to help inform the DAC when making its decision. For example, requestors could be asked to provide a proposed title for their research and a proposal of how the data will be used. By asking for provision of such information the DAC can be assured that the requestor fully understands any consents associated with the data. It is important that accounts created at the EGA, are created solely for those individuals that will be downloading the data from the EGA. As part of the data access request, we strongly encourage you to identify individuals that will need an account at the EGA in order to prevent sharing of login details, which is strictly prohibited under EGA user account policy. Such information can easily be captured in the DAA. NOTICE The data access agreement template below is provided for guidance only and should be adapted as you see fit to suit your own purpose. In the interest of promoting data sharing, we suggest that if an agreement cannot be met around clause 19 in this example that both parties should agree to remain silent, and that the clause should be removed from the agreement. Example DAA How can the DAC provide the DAA? The DAC should provide their own DAA when registering a policy. Data requestors will download this document and should fill it in and send it back to the DAC. Data access decisions should be based on such documentation. The DAA can be downloaded through the request data webpage. Once it has been filled in, the signed copy of the DAA can be uploaded back to the request data webpage and sent to the DAC for review. How can I grant access to the data? Once you receive a data access request, you can login to the DAC Portal. In this portal you will see all your pending requests and will be able to grant or decline access to the requestors. I am a member of the Data Access Committee. Could I approve somebody else to deal with the requests on my behalf? If you want to delegate data access decisions to someone else, make sure that the individual's account is officially registered as a member of the DAC. Remember that a DAC contact with an "admin" role can always add new members to an existing DAC, remove members, and modify contact details through the DAC Portal. Can I automatise the process of managing data access requests? The answer is yes! You can use a programmatic approach using our DAC API! Check out the DAC API specification! Data Breach What should a DAC do if they suspect a breach? If a DAC suspects a data breach of one or more of their datasets, they should immediately contact the EGA Helpdesk team at this link. The DAC must provide the following information when contacting the EGA Helpdesk team: A list of affected datasets An estimated date of the data breach (or interval of dates) A list of unauthorised users who accessed the data (if available). Otherwise, they can provide a list of authorised users for the affected datasets Any observations they would like to raise to the EGA team Once the DAC has contacted the EGA team, we will respond within 48 hours (please allow some leeway during peak times) and activate our data breach protocol. What can I expect from the EGA if they detect a breach? Once the EGA determines that a security incident has occurred, we will notify all DAC members that a data breach has been detected, and take steps to contain the incident. Containment approaches may include: Revoking a data provider's access to the EGA resources, such as by changing passwords. Removing affected EGA datasets from distribution, such as by withdrawing a dataset. Disabling certain functions or services, such as the EGA ingestion pipeline. Shutting down the system or disconnecting it from the network. After the incident has been contained, the EGA will determine whether it is necessary to eradicate components related to the incident. Finally, the EGA will enable recovery of the service to normal operation and confirm that all services are functioning normally.

Documentation access/data-access-committee/what-is-dac

Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program in Enchondromatoses and Related Malignant Tumors

Chondrosarcoma is a malignant tumor that originates from cartilaginous cells. It is the third most common primary malignancy of bone after myeloma and osteosarcoma. It accounts for about 20% of bone tumors and is diagnosed in approximately 600 patients each year in the United States. Up to 40% of the chondrosarcomas arise from an enchondroma. Enchondromas are benign, intramedullary cartilaginous tumors of bone. They can be solitary or multiple and are present in >3% of the population. Enchondromatosis refers to a group of diseases characterized by multiple enchondromas including metachondromatosis (MC), Ollier disease (OD), and Maffucci syndrome (MS) among others. All have skeletal abnormalities with or without associated vascular anomalies that can cause severe limb deformities during early childhood. The risk for chondrosarcoma is up to 30% in OD and MS. Currently, the only treatment for patients with these disorders is surgical; there is no effective pharmacologic therapy. The molecular bases of these two conditions is not well understood.

Study phs001987

RNAseq samples of patients with anti-PD-1 resistant HNSCC from a non-randomized, open-label phase 1b clinical trial

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is an effective treatment for a subset of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC); however, the majority remain refractory. In a nonrandomized, open-label Phase 1b clinical trial, participants with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC who had progressed on ICB were treated with low-dose 5-azacytidine (5-aza) daily for either 5 or 10 days, in combination with durvalumab and tremelimumab. The primary objective was to determine the biologically effective dose of 5-aza. In this study, RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed on baseline and on-treatment samples from eight participants, and transcriptomic changes were analyzed to assess the impact of low-dose 5-aza treatment.

Study EGAS50000000728

WES samples of patients with anti-PD-1 resistant HNSCC from a non-randomized, open-label phase 1b clinical trial

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is an effective treatment for a subset of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC); however, the majority remain refractory. In a nonrandomized, open-label Phase 1b clinical trial, participants with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC who had progressed on ICB were treated with low-dose 5-azacytidine (5-aza) daily for either 5 or 10 days, in combination with durvalumab and tremelimumab. The primary objective was to determine the biologically effective dose of 5-aza. In this study, whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on baseline samples from 12 participants, and genomic alterations were analyzed to access the genetic background of these participants.

Study EGAS50000000729

GoNL aligned sequence data in BAM format.

We mapped the data to the UCSC human reference genome build 37 using BWA 0.5.9-r16. We first mapped each read pair separately using bwa aln. Then we used bwa sampe to map the paired reads together to a BAM9 file. The BAM file was then sorted by genomic position and indexed using PicardTools-1.32 SortSam. To prevent PCR artifacts from influencing the downstream analysis of our data, we used Picard to mark the duplicate reads, which were ignored in downstream analysis. We used GATK IndelRealigner on our data around known indels (from 1KG Pilot). The IndelRealigner creates all possible read alignments using the source and computes the likelihood of the data containing the indel based on the read pileup. Whenever the maximum likelihood contains an indel, the reads are realigned accordingly. Each base is associated with a phred-scaled base quality score. Calibration of Phred scores is crucial as they are used in some of the downstream analysis models. We used GATK to recalibrate the base qualities with respect to (i) the base cycle, (ii) original quality score, and (iii) dinucleotide context. To minimize issues stemming from mapping problems around indels, we decided to undergo a second round of indel realignment using the GATK IndelRealigner by family rather than by individual. For this second round, we considered two sources of possible indels: 1KG Phase 1 indels and indels aligned by BWA in the GoNL data.

Dataset EGAD00001001038

Submitting array based metadata

Submitting array based metadata For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! The submission metadata required for Array-based submission must be submitted using EGA programmatic submission and by completing the Array-based format (AF) template. The guidelines for this workflow are described on this page. Please notice that all files should be encrypted and uploaded prior to the processing of your EGA Array-based-Format (AF) template. You can request a legacy EGA submission account (ega-box-XXXX) by populating this form. Please, allow two business days for our Helpdesk team to contact you after populating this form. Please notice that all files should be encrypted and uploaded prior to the processing of your EGA-Array-based-Format (AF) template. Metadata Model Registering Metadata Use the EGA programmatic submission to register your Study, Samples, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Policy. This online interface enables you to create new and edit existing submissions. Do not use the Submitter Portal to register the metadata objects for array submissions. Please, go to the EGA programmatic submission. Registering Study Go to the EGA programmatic submission Submit an study XML Take a note of your study accession number (EGASXXXXXXXXXXX) To use the study accession number in a publication, we suggest the following format: "Sequence data has been deposited at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGASXXXXXXXXXXX. Further information about EGA can be found on https://ega-archive.org "The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research"(https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1059 ). Registering Samples Go to the EGA programmatic submission Submit a sample XML Save the list of accession numbers. These will be needed for the AF template. Registering Data Access Committee Further information on the role of your DAC. Go to the EGA programmatic submission Submit a DAC XML Take a note of the DAC accession number (EGACXXXXXXXXXXX) Registering Policy Your Data Access Policy provides the terms and conditions of data use. This is also referred to as the Data Access Agreement (DAA). Completion of a DAA by the applicant/s should form part of the application process to the Data Access Committee (DAA) Go to the EGA programmatic submission Submit a Policy XML Take a note of the Policy accession number (EGAPXXXXXXXXXXX) Complete the Array-based format (AF) spreadsheet Once you have completed the registration of your Study, DAC and Policy using the programmatix submission, you must then complete and return the AF spreadsheet The AF spreadsheet consists on four components: Do not use EGA IDs registered using the Submitter Portal. You can easily identify objects registered in the Submitter Portal by their EGA ID pattern: EGA[A-Z]5{10 more digits} (e.g. for a sample EGAN50000002506). For populating an AF spreadsheet, please exclusively use EGA IDs following this specific pattern: EGA[A-Z]0{10 more digits} (e.g. for a sample EGAN00001691542). Tab1) Webin accessions : Provide the accession numbers for your study, DAC and policy. Please, also add your ega-box number. Tab2) Sample & phenotypes: Please, leave this tab blank. Tab3) Dataset: Describe the dataset to be created Tab4) Data files: Define how your data is going to be organised into datasets and packets for distribution (linkage between samples and files). Should further assistance be required after going through the guide below; please do not hesitate to contact the EGA helpdesk Once the AF spreadsheet is populated, please send it to our EGA helpdesk for further validation. AF spreadsheet Should your submission require multiple DAC's or policies, use ' ; ' to separate the accession numbers. Accessions AF spreadsheet: Samples & phenotypes Samples and phenotypes AF spreadsheet: Datasets We suggest that each dataset consists of a common set of data. The example below consists of two datasets, grouped according to shared data type, technology and by case/control. We also like to capture the number of unique samples that make up the dataset and the Data Access Committee (DAC) responsible for providing the named dataset and their policy (EGAP). Datasets AF spreadsheet: Data files What follows is an example of how to map your samples to the array based files added to your upload account (4th tab). Data Files Please, find below some practical examples on how to register the linkage between samples-files Case 1) 1 sample or list of samples in different datasets: Data Files In case you have a list of samples that belong to different datasets, please, repeat the samples accession number/s in the first column and link the sample to the corresponding dataset each time (each row). Each row is one linkage between sample-file-dataset. Case 2) 1 sample links to several files: Data Files In order to add multiple files to one sample you MUST use “ ; “ between filenames. Example: file1.gpg;file2.gpg;file3.gpg In case that you want to add an extra file to the sample (phenotype or .Rdata), please use “Additional files” column. Important note: You MUST upload the encrypted and unencrypted md5sum values of all files uploaded to your submission account using the filename nomenclature (file.gpg, file.md5,file.md5.gpg). Your submission will not be processed without md5values supplied for all files in the CORRECT format. What happens after the submission of a dataset? All datasets affiliated to unreleased studies are automatically placed on hold until the authorised submitted or DAC contact instructs our EGA helpdesk for the study to be released. Finally, your data is archived within our databases and prepared for encrypted distribution upon the request of permitted EGA account holders. We strongly advise you NOT to delete your data until we confirm that your data has been successfully archived.

Documentation submission/metadata/submission/array

The EVE Asthma Genetics Consortium: Building Upon GWAS

The EVE Asthma Genetics Consortium comprises U.S. investigators who have conducted genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of asthma; the main objective is to combine results of individual studies to increase the overall power to identify loci for asthma and asthma-associated traits. The consortium includes investigators at 9 U.S. institutions with GWAS results for >10,000 individuals representing European American, African American, African Caribbean, U.S. Hispanic, and Mexican populations and includes the following studies: The Study of Asthma Phenotypes and Pharmacogenomic Interactions by Race-Ethnicity (SAPPHIRE) The Genetic Research on Asthma in the African Diaspora (GRAAD) Study The Genetics of Asthma in Latino Americans (GALA 1) Study The Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP) The Childhood Asthma Research and Education (CARE) Network The Children's Health Study (CHS) Mexico City Childhood Asthma Study (MCCAS) The Chicago Asthma Genetics Study (CAG)* The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Collaborative Studies of the Genetics of Asthma (CSGA)* The Severe Asthma Research Program (SARP)* (*CAG, CSGA, and SARP are part of the NHLBI-supported SNP Typing for Association with Multiple Phenotypes from Existing Epidemiologic Data (STAMPEED) consortium.) For the GWAS, we developed a common set of >1 million genotyped and imputed SNPs from the EVE Asthma Genetics Consortium to be tested for association with asthma and associated phenotypes in all samples and combined p-values for a grand meta-analysis for asthma gene discovery. A subset of 296 individuals representing African American, European American, and Latino ancestry were selected for whole genome sequencing. The broad goals of this project were to characterize the genetic architecture of asthma and associated quantitative phenotypes (e.g., lung function, total serum IgE) in ethnically diverse populations from the U.S., Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Barbados.

Study phs001156

PROGRESS/ELEMENT DNA Methylation Study

An extension to the Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) birth cohort of Mexico City, the Programming Research in Obesity, GRowth, Environment and Social Stress (PROGRESS) Cohort is an ongoing longitudinal pre-birth cohort, established in 2006 in Mexico City, partnering Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai with Harvard University and the National Institute of Public Health in Mexico, which was designed to study the effects of prenatal exposure to toxic metals, air pollution, phthalates, and stress on childhood development. Pregnant women of 18 years of age and older, pregnant for less than 20 weeks of gestation, had no documentation of heart or kidney disease, no use of steroids or anti-epilepsy drugs, no daily alcohol consumption, had telephone access, and planned to live in Mexico city for the following 3 years, and receiving care through the Mexican Social Security System were initially enrolled (n=1,054). In addition to clinical, demographic and exposure data collected, cord blood was collected to interrogate DNA methylation across the genome for over 300 mother-child dyads. Clinical assessments and exposures were captured during several life stages, including prenatal, infant (0-1 year), youth (1-18 years), and adulthood (mother). The PROGRESS cohort added well-documented phenotyping of children for obesity, metabolic dysfunction, respiratory outcomes, and cardiovascular outcomes, as well as measures of air pollutant, personal care/consumer product, non-chemical stress, and metal mixture exposures. No clinical trials were conducted in this cohort. The data collected in this study should provide a unique resource to investigate DNA methylation as it relates to several environmental exposures and adverse cardiometabolic and neurocognitive health in mothers and children from a prospective birthing cohort. For access to demographic, clinical, and exposure data please directly contact study principal investigators.

Study phs002754

Discovery and validation of an ancillary genomic test of malignancy for primary melanocytic tumors

Background:Pathological diagnosis of melanocytic tumors can be difficult and prone to error. More accurate and reliable ancillary investigations than those currently available are required to improve diagnostic accuracy. Goals: (1) to generate a genomic model for distinguishing benign (nevi) from malignant (melanoma) melanocytic skin tumors, developed from a customized gene panel evaluated on a cohort of 250 nevi and melanomas. (2) To evaluate the performance of the genomic model in melanocytic tumors of uncertain diagnosis/behavior. Details: The cohort of 250 melanomas and naevi was split into a discovery set and a validation set. Our genomic model obtained an area under the curve of 95% in the discovery cohort and 96% for the validation cohort. Based on a Youden index threshold, the resulting classifier shows high specificity (>95% in the discovery and validation cohorts), with sensitivities >80% in the discovery and validation cohorts. Evaluation of the genomic model on a cohort of 110 melanocytic tumors identifies key driver mutations in agreement with the likely pathway of origin of the tumors. The probability of melanoma (p=0.02) from the genomic model was significantly associated with pathology-based estimates of malignancy for melanocytic tumors lacking pathway-defining genomic aberrations (conventional tumors). The genomic model identified 8/36 (22%) conventional tumors with unresolved malignancy to have a high probability of melanoma, with 7/8 of these cases showing negative/non-aberrant results with either fluorescent in-situ hybridization, PRAME and/or p16 immunostains. Furthermore, no evidence of malignant behavior based on the genomic model was seen in 4 conventional borderline tumors with more than 1 year follow-up. Conclusion: This genomic model can become a clinically useful ancillary tool that is highly specific for differentiating melanomas from nevi.

Study EGAS50000000887

Bladder cancer subtyping study across 4 atezo clinical trials

Checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction have revolutionized cancer therapy across many indications. In urothelial carcinoma (UC), several PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have been approved for treatment in localized and metastatic disease. While these agents provide durable clinical benefit in a number of patients, the majority do not respond. A better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying response and resistance is needed to tailor existing treatments and develop new therapeutics in UC. We profiled tumors from 2803 patients from four late-stage randomized clinical trials evaluating the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in metastatic UC and muscle-invasive bladder cancer by RNA-seq, a targeted DNA panel, immunohistochemistry, and digital pathology. A machine learning algorithm identified four UC transcriptional subtypes, representing luminal desert, stromal, immune, and basal tumors. Overall survival benefit from atezolizumab over standard-of-care was observed in immune and basal tumors (45% of patients). Digital pathology showed enrichment of human interpretable features in specific molecular subtypes, and a self-supervised approach could classify molecular subtypes from H&E slides with high accuracy, suggesting that machine-based image interpretation could accelerate tumor molecular profiling. Somatic alterations showed limited capacity to identify responders. Finally, mechanisms of benefit with PD-L1 blockade appeared different in immune and basal tumors, with immune tumors benefiting from B/plasma cell enrichment, while basal tumors benefited from granulocyte enrichment. This study represents the largest integration of UC molecular and curated clinical data in randomized clinical trials to date, paving the way for prospective clinical studies tailoring treatment regimens to specific tumor molecular subtypes in UC and other indications.

Study EGAS50000000497

Whole genome sequencing of tumor samples from advanced pre-treated NSCLC patients recruited in a phase I/II single-arm trial utilising CVA21, an oncolytic coxsackie virus, in combination with pembrolizumab.

Acquired or de novo resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors occurs in the majority of advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). There is an unmet need to improve outcomes for patients with this condition. Oncolytic viruses represent an attractive treatment approach due to their dual activity in inducing tumor cell lysis directly and potentially augmenting anti-tumor immunity. Here, we present the safety, efficacy and translational findings from a phase I/II single-arm trial utilising CVA21, an oncolytic coxsackie virus, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced pre-treated NSCLC. We performed paired biopsies pre- and post-treatment in 10 patients who received intravenous CVA21 and pembrolizumab, 8 of whom had prior treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Whole genome sequencing and spatial proteomics were performed to comprehensively characterise the response to CVA21. Combination CVA21/pembrolizumab (anti PD-1) therapy was well tolerated with no serious treatment-related adverse events. Partial responses were seen in two patients with prior acquired anti-PD-1 resistance and disease stabilisation in 6 patients, giving a clinical benefit rate of 80%. High baseline tumor mutational burden and PD-L1 expression were observed in patients with better response to treatment. Interestingly, an increase in antigen presentation and CD8+ T cell infiltration was observed on treatment compared with baseline in patients with better progression-free survival. This study demonstrates the potential of CVA21 to modulate the immunogenicity of tumor cells and remodelling the tumor microenvironment, providing novel insights for patient selection for trials involving novel immunotherapeutic approaches.

Study EGAS00001008258

Tubulointerstitial fibrosis is the histological hallmark of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Hypoxia and inflammation (i.e., interleukin (IL)-1β signalling) are independent mediators of tubulointerstitial fibrosis. However, the physiological response of human kidney tubular cells to IL-1β/IL-1RI signalling under the hypoxic conditions of CKD is poorly understood and remains a clinical imperative for therapeutic targeting. This study reports that hypoxia and IL-1β act in synergy to trigger cell cycle arrest/cellular senescence of ex vivo patient-derived primary proximal tubular epithelial cells (PTECs).

Hypoxia and interleukin (IL)-1β are independent mediators of tubulointerstitial fibrosis, the histological hallmark of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Here, we examine how hypoxia and IL-1β act in synergy to augment maladaptive proximal tubular epithelial cell (PTEC) repair in human CKD. Ex vivo patient-derived PTECs were cultured under normoxic (21% O2) or hypoxic (1% O2) conditions in the absence or presence of IL-1β and examined for maladaptive repair signatures. Hypoxic PTECs incubated with IL-1β displayed a discrete transcriptomic profile distinct from PTECs cultured under hypoxia alone, IL-1β alone or under normoxia. Hypoxia+IL-1β-treated PTECs had 692 ‘unique’ differentially expressed genes (DEGs) compared to normoxic PTECs, with ‘cell cycle’ the most significantly enriched KEGG pathway based on ‘unique’ down-regulated DEGs (including CCNA2, CCNB1 and CCNB2). Hypoxia+IL-1β-treated PTECs displayed signatures of cellular senescence, with reduced proliferation, G2/M cell cycle arrest, elevated senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SA-β-gal) activity and increased production of pro-inflammatory/fibrotic senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) factors compared to normoxic conditions. Treatment of Hypoxia+IL-1β-treated PTECs with either a senolytic drug combination, quercetin+dasatinib, or a type I IL-1 receptor (IL-1RI) neutralizing antibody attenuated senescent cell burden. Our data identify a mechanism whereby hypoxia in combination with IL-1β/IL-1RI signalling trigger PTEC senescence, providing novel therapeutic and diagnostic check-points for restoring tubular regeneration in human CKD.

Study EGAS00001007904

Identification of the Global miR-130a Targetome Reveals a Novel Role for TBL1XR1 in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Self-Renewal and t(8;21) AML

In this study, we identified miR-130a as a regulator of HSC self-renewal and differentiation. To characterize gene expression changes following enforced expression of miR-130a OE, we performed RNA-seq in CD34+ cord blood (CB) cells transduced with control and miR-130a OE lentiviruses. To capture miRNA targets in an unbiased, transcriptome-wide manner, we perfomed enhanced CLIPseq procol in 2 replicates of CD34+ CB cells and Kasumi-1 cell line, which represent a model system for t(8;21) AML. We chose this cell line, as we found miR-130a to be highly expressed in this AML subtype where it is critical for maintaining the oncogenic molecular program mediated by AML1-ETO. Chimeric Ago2 eCLIPseq in CD34+ CB cells combined with Mass Spectrometry data analysis identified TBL1XR1 as a principal target of miR-130a. To elucidate gene expression changes associated with TBL1XR1 loss of function, we performed RNA-seq in CD34+CD38- CB cells transduced with control and shRNA targeted against TBL1XR1. To determine the functional significance of high miR-130a expression levels in Kasumi-1 cells on the molecular network controlled by AML1-ETO, we performed CUT&RUN assay and RNA-seq in Kasumi-1 cells following miR-130a knock-down (KD). Collectively, our findings reveal a unique role of miR-130a in regulating normal hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal and how elevated levels of miR-130a in t(8;21) AML contribute to the leukemogenesis of this AML subtype.

Dataset EGAD00001008412

Single_Cell_Targeted_Sequence_Capture

This study is to ascertain whether it is feasible to extract single cell from a tumour, perform amplification, generate a library and sequence a targeted pulldown.

Study EGAS00001000435

African American Multiple Myeloma GWAS

The case set is from a case-control study designed to identify common genetic risk factors for multiple myeloma in African Americans, the population with the highest risk for this cancer. We conducted two GWAS and combined each of these with convenience controls consisting of unaffected African American participants in cohorts with existing GWAS data. We then conducted a meta-analysis of the two sets. Cases were persons of African ancestry with smoldering or active multiple myeloma identified at participating oncology clinics or through SEER registries, as part of the African American Multiple Myeloma Study (AAMMS) diagnosed from Jan 1, 1988 through July 31, 2016. The majority of the samples were collected from incident and prevalent cases diagnosed since Jan 1, 2008 (80.9%), with a minority obtained from biobanks from cases diagnosed prior to 2008 (19.1%). Additional samples were obtained from the Multiethnic Cohort (USC and University of Hawaii) (n=40), the University of California at San Francisco Multiple Myeloma Study (n=27), and from the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium for secondary analysis (samples originally provided to MMRC by 8 additional sites (n=84)). We have identified the phenotype (smoldering myeloma, plasma cell multiple myeloma, or myeloma not otherwise specified (myeloma NOS) when myeloma phenotype was not known), sex and age at diagnosis in this data set. The initial GWAS set consisted of 1308 (1,305 passed QC) cases with DNA samples, with a GWAS performed on the Illumina Human Core. Controls consisted of 7,078 unaffected African American subjects who were participants in the African American Prostate and Breast Consortium, with existing GWAS data from the Illumina1M Duo BeadChip. The second GWAS set consisted of 529 African American multiple myeloma patients with samples (406 from University of Arkansas, results not contained in this dataset because NCI funds were not used for the collection and genotyping) with GWAS data resulting from the Illumina Mega-BeadChip v1.1. Controls were 2,390 unaffected African American participants in the Multiethnic Cohort with existing GWAS data from the same array. After QC and removal of duplicates within sets, sex mismatches, and removal of plasmacytoma cases (ICD-0 code 9731), this deposited data set contains the typed GWAS data for the Illumina Human Core (set 1) (n=1298), and for the MegaBead Chip v1.1 (set 2) (n=123), with the University of Arkansas samples removed, for a total of 1,421 case genotypes. Note that 13 samples that overlap set 1 and set 2 were included.

Study phs001632

Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial and Observational Study - Imaging

Objectives: The clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of three interventions. Specifically, it evaluated (1) the major health benefits and risks of estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone, (2) the effects of a low-fat eating pattern on risk of colorectal cancer, and (3) the efficacy of calcium with vitamin D supplementation for preventing hip and other fractures. The objective of the memory study was to determine whether estrogen plus progestin therapy protects global cognitive function, and evaluate the therapy's effect on the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment.The observational study is examining the relationship between lifestyle, socioeconomic, health, and other risk factors with cardiovascular, breast cancer, colorectal cancer and osteoporotic fracture outcomes. Secondary objectives include providing more reliable estimates of the extent to which known risk factors predict disease, more precise estimates of new occurrences of disease, and to provide a future resource for the identification of new or novel risk factors especially factors found in blood. Background: The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing the major causes of death, disability, and frailty in postmenopausal women, specifically heart disease, cancer, and osteoporotic fractures. The WHI is primarily composed of an observational study (OS), as well a clinical trial (CT) with three components: Hormone Replacement Therapy (HT), Dietary Modification, (DM) and Calcium/Vitamin D supplementation (CaD).Prior to the WHI, observational studies suggested that postmenopausal hormone therapy was associated with a decreased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Potential cardioprotection was based on generally supportive data on lipid levels in intermediate outcome clinical trials, trials in nonhuman primates, and a large body of observational studies suggesting a 40% to 50% reduction in risk among users of either estrogen alone or, less frequently, combined estrogen and progestin. Observational studies primarily examining unopposed estrogen preparations have suggested a 30% to 50% reduction in coronary events, and an 8% to 30% increase in breast cancer with extended use. Other research findings indicated that hormone therapy was also associated with a decreased risk of osteoporosis and increased bone density. The WHI HT trials were designed to test the effects of postmenopausal hormone therapy on risk for coronary heart disease and assess overall risks and benefits in predominantly healthy women. The Women's Health Initiative Memory Program (WHIMS) consists of a suite of studies which include cohorts of women who participated in the WHI HT trials. Postmenopausal women have a greater risk than men of developing Alzheimer's disease, but studies of the effects of estrogen therapy on Alzheimer's disease have been inconsistent. Additionally, observational studies have suggested that postmenopausal hormone treatment may improve cognitive function, but data from randomized clinical trials have been sparse and inconclusive. International comparisons and migration studies have suggested that countries with 50% lower fat intake than the US population had approximately one third the risk of colorectal cancer. Additionally, fairly consistent evidence existed for an effect of dietary fat, vegetables and fruits, and grains on colorectal cancer risk from within-country observational studies, although the protective effect of lower fat intake was no longer clear after adjusting for energy intake. The WHI DM trial was the first randomized trial to directly address the health effects of a low-fat eating pattern in predominantly healthy postmenopausal women from diverse racial/ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Osteoporosis is a major cause of injury, loss of independence, and death, and contributes to hip fractures. Observational evidence and data from previous randomized clinical trials suggest that calcium and/or vitamin D supplements may slow bone loss and reduce the risk of falls in postmenopausal and elderly women. However, evidence from trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses of calcium and vitamin D supplementation with respect to hip and other fractures was limited at the time the WHI was initiated. In two prior randomized trials, calcium plus vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk of nonvertebral fractures among older women. When the WHI CaD trial was designed, guidelines recommended daily intakes of 800 to 1200 mg of calcium with 400 IU of vitamin D for the prevention of osteoporosis, which was not met by many American women. Therefore, the WHI CaD trial was designed to test the primary hypothesis that postmenopausal women randomly assigned to calcium plus vitamin D supplementation would have a lower risk of hip fracture and, secondarily, of all fractures than women assigned to placebo. Subjects: Postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 were eligible to participate. A woman was considered postmenopausal if she had experienced no vaginal bleeding for 6 months (12 months for women under 55 years of age), had had a hysterectomy, or had ever used postmenopausal hormones. Recruitment was carried out in 40 US clinical centers in 1993-1998. The clinical trial components had additional specific inclusion or exclusion criteria.A total of 68,132 women were randomized into at least one component of the clinical trial. 27,347 women were enrolled in the hormone therapy component with 16,608 in the estrogen plus progestin trial and 10,739 in the unopposed estrogen trial, 48,835 women were enrolled in the diet modification component, and 36,282 women were enrolled in the calcium/vitamin D component. 7,479 women 65 years of age and older at baseline and that participated in the HT trial component were enrolled in the ancillary memory study. Women who were either ineligible or unwilling to participate in the clinical trial component were enrolled in the observational study. For example, many potential participants to the clinical trial component of the study were already undertaking a low fat diet or were using hormone replacement therapy. The effect of the selection process was that women enrolled in the observational study tended to have healthier lifestyles compared to those enrolled in the clinical trial. In total, 93,676 subjects were enrolled in WHI OS, with over 16% being members of a racial/ethnic minority group. The first WHI Extension Study enrolled 115,407 consenting participants from all components of the original WHI study for an additional five years of follow-up, from 2005 to 2010. In 2010, 93,567 women consented to continued follow-up. Design: The clinical trial component of the WHI included three randomized comparisons: hormone therapy, dietary modification, and calcium/vitamin D supplementation. Women could have been randomized into one, two or all three trials.The hormone therapy trial enrolled women to one of two double-blinded trials: estrogen (0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens daily) plus progestin (2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate daily) or estrogen alone. Women with a prior hysterectomy were eligible for the trial of unopposed estrogen. Women with an intact uterus at screening were initially also eligible for unopposed estrogen, but were reassigned to the trial of combined postmenopausal hormones beginning in 1995. Both trials randomized participants 1:1 to either hormone therapy or placebo. A 3-month washout period was required before baseline evaluation of women using postmenopausal hormones at initial screening. Study participants were contacted by telephone 6 weeks after randomization to assess symptoms and reinforce adherence. Follow-up contacts by telephone or clinic visit occurred every 6 months, with clinic visits required annually. The estrogen plus progestin trial was halted in July 2002 after a mean 5.2 years of follow-up because health risks, including increased risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, exceeded benefits. The estrogen alone trial was stopped early in March 2004, because an increased risk of stroke was found with no benefit for coronary heart disease. The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) (nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death), with invasive breast cancer as the primary adverse outcome. The dietary modification trial evaluated the effect of a low-fat, high fruit, vegetable, and grain diet on preventing cardiovascular disease and cancer. Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or a comparison group in the ratio of 2:3 for cost-efficiency. The intervention was an intensive behavioral modification program, using 18 group sessions in the first year and quarterly sessions thereafter, led by specially trained and certified nutritionists. The program was designed to promote dietary change with the goals of reducing total fat to 20% of energy intake, increasing vegetables and fruits to at least 5 servings daily and grains to at least 6 servings daily. The intervention did not include total energy reduction or weight loss goals. Comparison group participants received a copy of the US Department of Health and Human Services' Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other health-related materials but were not asked to make dietary changes. Dietary intake was monitored using the WHI food frequency questionnaire at 1 year and in a rotating one-third subsample every year thereafter. Women completed a medical update questionnaire every 6 months, and medical records were sought for all women reporting colorectal cancer. The primary outcome was invasive colorectal cancer incidence. Participants in the calcium/vitamin D trial were randomized 1:1 to either supplements or placebo. Active tablets contained 500 mg of elemental calcium (as calcium carbonate) and 200 IU of vitamin D3, to be taken twice daily with meals. The presence and severity of symptoms, safety concerns, and outcomes were ascertained at annual clinic visits and telephone or clinic visits at intervening six-month intervals. Risk factors for fracture were assessed by questionnaire, interview, and clinical examination. The primary outcome was incidence of hip fracture. Participants in the observational study attended a baseline examination and were re-examined three years later. Participants completed annual updates of exposures and clinical outcomes by mail. Final data were collected by mail during the close-out period in April 2004 to March 2005. The major clinical outcomes of interest were coronary heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, osteoporotic fractures, diabetes, and total mortality. Most outcomes were initially ascertained by self-report on an annual questionnaire and documented by hospital and related records. Charts with potential cardiovascular, cancer, and fracture outcomes were sent to the local physician adjudicator for evaluation and classification. Staff at the Clinical Coordinating Center coded and adjudicated all cancers of major interest in the study using standardized SEER guidelines. In 2005, WHI participants were invited to join the Extension Study for an additional five years of follow-up in order to collect long-term outcomes. Participants completed annual data collection forms primarily by mail, similar to the OS follow-up. Women reporting study outcomes were contacted by WHI field center staff to obtain additional details and medical records, which were evaluated by physician adjudicators. In 2010, the woman remaining were invited to join the next Extension Study. In the second extension, women were divided into two groups, one of which would have outcomes documented with medical records (the Medical Records Cohort, MRC), and the other would just be followed by self-report (the Self-Report Cohort, SRC). The MRC consists of women who were in the hormone therapy trials, and all African-American and Hispanic women. In 2012-2013, a subset of the MRC was identified for a potential in-home visit to collect blood and several objective measures of physical functioning. Conclusions: Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin after an average 5.2 year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women (Rossouw et al., 2002, PMID:12117397). Among postmenopausal women aged 65 years or older, estrogen plus progestin did not improve cognitive function when compared with placebo (Rapp et al., 2003, PMID: 12771113), increased the risk for probable dementia, and did not prevent mild cognitive impairment (Shumaker, et al., 2003, PMID: 12771112). The use of conjugated equine estrogen increased the risk of stroke, decreased the risk of hip fracture, and did not affect CHD incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy after an average of 6.8 years of follow-up (Anderson et al., 2004, PMID: 15082697). Over approximately 8 years of follow-up, a low-fat dietary pattern did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (Beresford, et al., PMID: 16467233). Calcium with vitamin D supplementation resulted in a small but significant improvement in hip bone density; however, no significant difference was observed in hip fractures (Jackson, et al., 2006, PMID: 16481635). A recent review summarizes the conclusions from the WHI clinical trials with a focus on clinical practice (Manson, et al., 2024, PMID: 38691368).Description of ECG Imaging Data: Electric cardiograms (ECGs) were given to all clinical trial participants at baseline and in years 3, 6, and 9 of the original WHI study.EKG data consist of 12 lead 10 seconds ECGS sampled at 500Hz via GE ECG machines and process via GE MUSE system. The ECG waveform were directly exported from GE MUSE using MUSE export function in XML format, which include EKG waveform data as well as other ECG characteristics. Waveform data is in base64 encoded format, when it is decoded, it is a binary data that can be used to draw waveform graph. Many programming languages and data tools have built in functions to decode base64 strings. All the other necessary information is included in the LeadData section, total byte size, total sample size etc. (usually 1 sample is 2 bytes). See example below: encoded-data (base64 encoded string) JwAoAC0AKAAiACIAJAAkACQAIwAiACIAHgAcABwAGwAZABgAGAAYABcAEwAQABAAEAAL^/AAsADAAM... decoded-binary-data (1 sample is 2 bytes) 270028002D002800220022002400240024002300220022001E001C001C001B00 1900180018001800170013001000100010000B000B000C000C000D000D000D00 0A000A000A0009000600040004000700070005000500020... These binary values are integers (Y axis data of the graph), hence it is a straightforward process to draw the waveform graph. Acquisition dates have been redacted from this ECG data to comply with WHI policy. All acquisition dates within files and in file names have been set to January 1, 1900 (19000101) to comply with this policy.

Study phs003824

NHLBI TOPMed: Early-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in the Estonian Biobank

The Estonian Biobank is the population-based biobank of the Estonian Genome Centre of University of Tartu. The biobank is conducted according to the Estonian Gene Research Act and all participants have signed broad informed consent. The cohort size is currently 51,535 people from 18 years of age and up.

Study phs001606

Metabolism and Genetics of Hypobetalipoproteinemia

Hypobetalipoproteinemia is characterized by extremely low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Familial hypobetalipoproteinemia (FHBL) is a monogenic form of hypobetalipoproteinemia caused by mutations in the APOB gene. There are cases of hypobetalipoproteinemia not caused by mutations in APOB, however. The purpose of this study is to identify novel genetic causes of hypobetalipoproteinemia.

Study phs000561

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.

Study EGAS00001000407

Best Endovascular vs. Best Surgical Therapy in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST CLI-BioLINCC)

Data Access NOTE Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives To compare the effectiveness of surgical treatment to the effectiveness of endovascular treatment in adults with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who are eligible for both treatment options. Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects more than 200 million people worldwide. A portion of those individuals develop chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). CLTI is associated with severe health outcomes. CLTI is defined by ischemic foot pain at rest, ischemic ulcerations, or gangrene. Treatment for CLTI includes revascularization to improve limb perfusion and limit the risk of amputation. However, the choice of surgery or endovascular therapy for revascularization varies greatly. The extent to which this variability affects clinical outcomes in patients with CLTI is unknown. The BEST-CLI trial was initiated to determine whether endovascular revascularization was superior to surgical revascularization in patients with CLTI. Participants A total of 1434 participants with a single segment of great saphenous vein comprised cohort 1. Of these, 718 participants were randomly assigned to the surgical treatment group and 716 participants were randomly assigned to the endovascular therapy group. A total of 396 participants needing an alternative conduit comprised cohort 2. Of these, 197 participants were randomly assigned to the surgical treatment group and 199 participants were randomly assigned to the endovascular therapy group. Design BEST-CLI was an international, randomized, open-label trial. Participants were assigned to one of two cohorts based on the availability of a single segment of great saphenous vein. Participants in both cohorts were randomly assigned to either surgery or endovascular therapy. Follow-up was performed at 30 days after the procedure, 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter up to 84 months after randomization. Telephone visits in lieu of clinic visits were planned at 30 months and every 12 months thereafter and at the end of the trial. Participants were followed for major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause), quality of life, level of pain, and performance on the six-minute walk test. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse limb events or death from any cause. A major adverse limb event was defined as above ankle amputation of the index limb or a major index-limb reintervention (new bypass, interposition graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis). Conclusions Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. Farber A, Menard MT, Conte MS, et al. Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(25):2305-2316. PMID 36342173

Study phs003844

10928 results for "division 1 coins fc 26 Buyfc26coins.com is FC 26 coins official site..AwVj"

in 23.47 milliseconds.