17297 results for "fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is EA Sports official for FC 26 coins They are definitely a top seller..rG5l"

in 15.32 milliseconds.

• Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Atrial Fibrillation Study

  The Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Atrial Fibrillation Study was initiated in 2001. The study has enrolled serial probands, unaffected and affected family members with atrial fibrillation. At enrollment participants undergo a structured interview to systematically capture their past medical history, AF treatments, and family history. An electrocardiogram is performed; the results of an echocardiogram are obtained; and blood samples are obtained. The Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Atrial Fibrillation Study is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. To view genotypes, analysis, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these substudies, please click on the following substudies below or in the "Substudies" box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs001001 Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Atrial Fibrillation Study. phs001116 MGH AF CHARGE-S phs001117 MGH AF Exome Sequencing phs001118 MGH AF Medical Resequencing

  Study phs001001

• Molecularly matched targeted therapies plus radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation (N2M2/NOA-20 phase I/IIa umbrella trial)

  Background: Patients with glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation are unlikely to benefit from temozolomide (TMZ). Trials aiming at replacing TMZ with targeted agents in not molecularly selected patient populations have failed. Methods: This phase I/IIa umbrella trial aimed at showing safety, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of targeted compounds in addition to standard radiotherapy initiated within 42 days postoperatively. Molecular diagnostics and bioinformatic evaluation are performed within 28 days after surgery. Stratification for treatment takes place in five subtrials, including alectinib, idasanutlin, palbociclib, vismogedib and temsirolimus, according to the best matching molecular alteration. Patients without matching alterations are randomized between subtrials without strong biomarkers using atezolizumab and asunercept and TMZ as standard of care. Primary objective of the phase I parts of the trial was dose finding or dose validation. In the phase IIa trials, centrally determined progression-free survival at six months (PFS-6) is used as endpoint for efficacy with interim analyses for futility (H0: p=0.231). Results: From May 2018 through July 2022, 301 patients were enrolled and 228 treated in 13 German NOA sites. The alectinib and vismodegib subtrials were closed since no molecularly matching patients were accrued; the idasanutlin subtrial was closed prior to the optimal dose at nine patients at discretion of the company providing the drug. The TMZ subtrial showed a PFS-6 of 18.52% (10/54 patients) (p=0.831) and a median overall survival (OS) of 12.1 months. Asunercept: PFS-6 of 15.4% (4/26) (p=0.8825) and OS of 12.8 months. Atezolizumab: PFS-6 of 21.4% (9/42) (p=0.660) and OS of 11.7 months. Palbociclib with patients demonstrating CDK4 amplification or CDKN2A/B codeletion: PFS-6 of 24.4% (10/41) (p=0.4823) and OS of 12.6 months. Temsirolimus with patients demonstrating mTOR activation: PFS-6 of 39.1% (18/46) (p=0.0109) and OS of 15.4 months. The regimen-limiting toxicity (RLT)-rate is 34.8%, which is insignificantly above the predefined unacceptable rate for RLTs of 30%. Most RLTs had severity grade 3, one RLT had severity grade 4. No RLTs resulted in death. Conclusions: N2M2 allows for elaborate molecular testing being integrated into the treatment decision and efficient determination of treatment activity for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. There is clinical activity of temsirolimus in patients with tumors harboring an activated mTOR pathway although this is not positively prognostic without mTOR inhibition; there is no clinical activity for asunercept and atezolizumab in not molecularly selected patients and also palbociclib in molecularly selected patients.

  Study EGAS00001008033

• BLUEPRINT release August 2016, ChIP-Seq for band form neutrophil, on genome GRCh38

  ChIP-Seq data for 4 band form neutrophil sample(s). 26 run(s), 23 experiment(s), 23 analysis(s) on human genome GRCh38. Part of BLUEPRINT release August 2016. Analysis documentation available at http://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/blueprint/releases/20160816/homo_sapiens/README_chipseq_analysis_ebi_20160816

  Dataset EGAD00001002454

• Integrating molecular imaging and transcriptomic profiling in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1): an analysis of the ZEPHIR clinical trial

  Purpose: The ZEPHIR clinical trial evaluated the role of [89Zr]trastuzumab-PET/CT (HER2-PET/CT) and 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET/CT ([18F]FDG-PET/CT) in predicting outcomes in patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). Here, we combined molecular/metabolic imaging and transcriptomic data to investigate the biological processes associated with [89Zr]trastuzumab and [18F]FDG uptake, and to dissect the mechanisms involved in T-DM1 resistance. Experimental design: RNA was extracted from metastasis biopsies obtained at study inclusion in the ZEPHIR trial. HER2-PET/CT and [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging data of biopsied lesions were integrated with RNA sequencing data. Lesions were compared based on the level of [89Zr]trastuzumab uptake (dichotomized into high/low classes) as well as on the presence/absence of metabolic response, defined comparing baseline and on-treatment [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Results: We analyzed matched transcriptomic and molecular/metabolic imaging data for 24 metastases (one lesion/patient). Pathways involved in extracellular matrix (ECM) organization, glycosylphosphatidylinositol synthesis, and collagen formation were enriched in lesions presenting low [89Zr]trastuzumab uptake. [18F]FDG uptake at baseline correlated with proliferation and immune-related processes. Hypoxia and ECM-related processes were enriched in lesions that showed no metabolic response to T-DM1. Interestingly, immune-related processes (e.g., Fc gamma receptor activation, complement cascade) were associated with high [89Zr]trastuzumab uptake and metabolic response. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study represents the first correlative analysis between [89Zr]trastuzumab tumor uptake and gene expression profiling in humans. Our findings point toward a role of ECM in impairing [89Zr]trastuzumab tumor uptake and T-DM1 metabolic response in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, and highlight the potential of molecular imaging to depict tumor microenvironment features.

  Study EGAS50000000470

• WES of der(1;7)(q10;p10)

  This dataset contains the BAM files of WES of 26 myeloid neoplasm patients with der(1;7)(q10;p10)(+) cases. The dataset was used to identify key driver genes in patients with der(1;7)(q10;p10). Already known drivers along with novel driver genes were identified through the use of this WES.

  Dataset EGAD50000000986

• BLUEPRINT: RNA-seq of progenitor cells

  Data supporting the paper Transcriptional diversity during lineage commitment of human blood progenitors

  Dataset EGAD00001000745

• Genetic analysis of HLA and immune escape genes in Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma

  Fifty percent of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cases lack cell-surface expression of the class-I major histocompatibility complex (MHC-I), thereby escaping immune recognition by cytotoxic T cells. In order to comprehensively identify the mechanisms involved in MHC-I loss, we first performed immunophenotypic analysis of both MHC class-I and -II in 657 cases across the spectrum of B-NHL, revealing that loss of MHC-I, but not MHC-II, is preferentially restricted to DLBCL. We then used whole exome and targeted deep-sequencing to examine genes involved in MHC-I expression in 74 DLBCL samples representative of MHC-I positive and negative cases. We show here that somatic biallelic or monoallelic inactivation of B2M and/or HLA-I is present in 80.9% (34/42) of MHC-I negative tumors. Furthermore, 68.8% (22/32) of MHC-I positive DLBCLs also harbored monoallelic HLA-I genetic alterations (MHC-I positivemono) that lead to allelic imbalance, suggesting allele-specific inactivation. Both MHC-I negative and MHC-I positivemono cases showed a significantly higher mutational burden as well as a higher number of inferred neo-antigens, suggesting co-selection of HLA-I loss and sustained neo-antigen production. Interestingly, the analysis of > 500.000 individuals in two databases revealed homozygosity of germline HLA-I genes in 26-38% of DLBCL patients, a frequency significantly higher than that observed in any other cancer type. In mice, germinal-center B cells lacking HLA-I expression did not progress to lymphoma and were counterselected in the context of oncogene-driven lymphomagenesis, suggesting that additional events are needed to license immune evasion. These results suggest a multi-step process of HLA-I loss including both germ-line and somatic events in DLBCL development, and have direct implications for the pathogenesis and immunotherapeutic targeting of this disease.

  Study EGAS00001005054

• FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

  The Federated EGA is a global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use, through a network of human data repositories to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health. The Federated EGA network was launched in September 2022 with five inaugural nodes, and since 2023 seven operational nodes can share data across national borders in adherence to European and national laws. A few weeks after FEGA's official launch, in November 2022, the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was kicked-off . This European Commission co-funded project, coordinated by ELIXIR, is aimed to deliver federated, sustainable and secure data infrastructure to access genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. This project supports the aim of the 1+MG initiative (25 EU countries, Norway and UK) to enable personalised medicine and health through a shared framework and infrastructure for securely accessing and integrating high quality genomic data and other health data across borders.1+MG will be an integral component of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) for secondary use (Healthdata@EU) as an authorised participant. How are Federated EGA and GDI similar? Given their shared visions, the Federated EGA and European GDI networks have a lot in common. To begin, they share the same overall goal of establishing networks of “nodes” that host sensitive human data within a jurisdiction and connecting these nodes in a global network to support data discovery and promote human genome data access for research and healthcare. FEGA and GDI are both initially focused on enabling access to human genomic data, while FEGA ambition is to expand the scope to clinical research data and other omics data in the future. FEGA and GDI are both built on open and interoperable software solutions, a subset of which are based on the LocalEGA components. FEGA and GDI implementation solutions are based on international community standards, for example those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, which contributes to making them interoperable. Both FEGA and GDI allow for the nodes to make use of any solution that is fully compatible. As illustrated in Figure 1, a final key point is the significant overlap of institutions involved in envisioning and operating FEGA and GDI nodes, with the clear wish to keep them interoperable in the future. What distinguishes Federated EGA from GDI? Despite being largely similar, there are some differences between the FEGA and GDI networks, which we aim to clarify in this post. The first difference is the governance model that the nodes will operate to comply with national laws and GDPR. In the FEGA network, nodes have taken inspiration from the EGA data access model, where the infrastructure is a data processor of the hosted data and data controllership remains with the originating Data Access Committees (i.e. Data controllers) for each dataset. On the other hand, in the GDI network the controllership of datasets will be transferred to a 1+MG European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) legal entity created by the Member States (MS), who will make data access decisions, with data holders having veto powers for their datasets. Importantly, FEGA nodes have the flexibility to choose another model to fit with their data protection framework, including becoming data controllers for their datasets. The second difference is the inclusion criteria for data. While FEGA nodes are designed to accept almost any type of omics data in need of control access (e.g. genomics, transcriptomics, genotyping, single cells sequencing, patient-tracked metagenomics), GDI nodes are initially, but not only, focused on accepting whole genome and exome sequencing data and affiliated data from sources such as (i) the Genome of Europe use case of the 1+MG initiative which specifically aims to fulfil the mission of building “a European network of national genomic reference cohorts of at least 500,000 citizens”) (ii) data collection of other types of genomic data identified by countries through the 1+MG dashboard and (iii) genomic data coming from data holders which would need to fulfil EHDS requirements. The third difference is the maturity of the software stacks. The FEGA network provides a set of software for data and metadata submission, storage, permissions management, and file distribution (the LocalEGA package). GDI is building a complete set of open source reference for the five functionalities covering the full data life cycle (a few more compared to the LocalEGA) including federated processing (analytics, AI/ML), which is still under active development. Notably, one of the GDI functionalities - storage and interfaces - can be satisfied by using the LocalEGA storage solution, highlighting the ability of FEGA and GDI to be interoperable. In both FEGA and GDI, nodes are allowed to use alternative solutions as long as they are fully interoperable with the networks. Figure 1 provides a simple overview of these described commonalities and differences. Figure1: schematic overview of the main commonalities and difference among a FEGA and a GDI node Can the same institute run a FEGA and a GDI node at the same time? The answer is Yes! We believe this is entirely possible and encouraged. As long as 1+MG requirements are continuously fulfilled in the implementation. The same trained personnel could operate the infrastructure and leverage the same national funding to run a FEGA and a GDI node. Several European nodes, especially GDI vanguard nodes like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain are following this model. The idea is that a lot of the work can be reused, given the overlapping scope and the interoperable technology. Thus, the hosted datasets can be discovered via the two catalogues, perhaps accessible under the same or different governance models. From a FEGA node perspective, the GDI datasets could simply be a subset of the datasets hosted in the FEGA node, which have their specific governance as any other. What's next? So, the amazing teams of people building the Federated EGA network and the European GDI network are working together to create infrastructures able to provide secure access to human genomic and associated data around Europe. Because we all know how much human genomics can improve healthcare and precision medicine. And we all want to collaborate to make it happen. This article has been reviewed collectively by members of the EGA and the GDI coordination team.

  Blog fega-and-gdi

• Tremelimumab +/- durvalumab in combination with paclitaxel as immune induction in metastatic urothelial cancer: clinical and translational results of the ICRA trial

  DESCRIPTION: New therapeutic strategies for therapy-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients are still needed. In the phase I-II ICRA trial, we evaluated whether paclitaxel plus tremelimumab (T; anti-CTLA-4), with or without durvalumab (D; anti-PD-L1), could induce a tumor response in mUC patients who had already received platinum chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). After a dose-escalation safety phase, patients were randomized between three arms: A (n=20 after expansion) paclitaxel plus T750mg (cycles 2-8); B (n=12) paclitaxel plus T300mg (cycle 2) plus D1500mg (cycles 2-13); C (n=12) T750mg (cycles 1-7). The objective response rate in arm A was 26% (88% confidence interval (CI) = [14,36%]) versus 17% (88% CI = [3,42%]) in arm B and 8% (88% CI = [0.3,33%]) in arm C. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in (A) 45%, (B) 75%, and (C) 25% of patients. Murine experiments showed attenuated tumor outgrowth for paclitaxel plus anti-CTLA-4 compared to monotherapy with either agent. Transcriptomic analyses showed upregulation of inflammation signatures in on-treatment tumor tissue biopsies. This study demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity in therapy-refractory mUC treated with paclitaxel plus high-dose anti-CTLA-4 and suggests immune induction may still be possible after failure to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. PROJECT GOAL: We aimed to explore both potential biomarkers for response to combination ICB, as well as treatment dynamics to gain a better understanding of the effects of ICB on the urothelial cancer tumor microenvironment (TME).

  Study EGAS50000001574

• 10x Genomics raw data of intestinal plasma cells

  The dataset contains raw fastq files (fastq.gz) for Chromium Single Cell 5’ gene expression (GEX), human B cell VDJ and feature barcode (CSP) sequencing from transglutaminase 2-specific and other small intestinal plasma cells isolated from four untreated celiac disease patients. Single cell 5’ gene expression, V(D)J-enriched and cell surface protein libraries were generated using Chromium single cell kits, and barcoded cDNA from a total of 5,000-10,000 cells per sample was generated using the 10x Genomics Chromium Controller. The libraries were pooled prior to sequencing on a NovaSeq 6000 instrument (Illumina) using the following configuration: read 1: 26 cycles, read 2: 89 cycles, index read 1: 8 cycles.

  Dataset EGAD50000000342