11198 results for "fc coins to buy Visit Buyfc26coins.com FC 26 kolikoni ilmestyivät juuri kun pelasin. Täydellinen ajoitus!.iZqe"

in 12.12 milliseconds.

• 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

• Wistar PDX Development and Trial Center

  Overall the outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma have improved dramatically over the last decade due to an improved understanding of the molecular drivers of this disease. In particular, multiple targeted therapy regimens have been approved for patients with a BRAFV600E/K mutation, which are present in ~50% of cutaneous melanomas. These treatments achieve clinical responses in ~80% of patients with a BRAFV600E/K mutation, thus providing proof-of-concept of the therapeutic potential for personalized therapeutic strategies. However, most of the patients will progress within 2 years of starting those therapies. Further, currently there are no targeted therapies that have been shown to be effective in patients with a wild-type BRAF. Thus, there are unmet clinical needs to develop treatments that prevent or overcome resistance to existing therapies for patients with a BRAFV600E/K mutation, and that are effective in patients without a BRAF mutation. In order to facilitate the development of new therapeutic strategies, over the last 5 years we have led a major effort to develop a broad collection of PDX models to reflect the clinical, histological, and genetic heterogeneity of this disease. Our collection of PDX models represents one of the largest collections for any human malignancy, and our initial testing demonstrates that the collection accurately recapitulates the oncogenic drivers and molecular heterogeneity that is observed in patients. This collection also includes a subset of PDX established from patients with acquired resistance to targeted therapies that have been maintained on those agents in vivo to sustain their resistant phenotype. Together these efforts have generated a robust resource to develop, refine, and prioritize new personalized combinatorial therapies for patients. Thus, we propose to establish a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional PDTC Program focused on the use and continued expansion of our robust melanoma PDX collection to identify new therapeutic approaches that fill important clinical gaps in this disease.

  Study phs002432

• Phenotypic and Genotypic Study of Keratoconus

  Keratoconus, a disease in which the cornea is abnormally steep and thin, affects approximately 1 in 2000 individuals and usually begins in the second decade of life. Keratoconus is a progressive disorder that results in loss of vision that cannot be alleviated by contact lenses or glasses alone and is a leading indication for corneal transplantation in developed countries (Udar et al., 2006, PMID: 16877401). Keratoconus has a strong genetic component, and while several causative genes are clearly suspected, the underlying pathogenic processes have not yet been identified. The goal of our research is to identify genes that harbor mutations contributing to keratoconus and underlying biochemical processes relevant to keratoconus pathogenesis and to develop a better understanding of the etiology of keratoconus, leading to improved detection, treatment, and management. We will enroll isolated keratoconus along with familial cases and unaffected relatives when available. The subject population will consist of individuals diagnosed with keratoconus and unaffected relatives in families. Individuals/families will be ascertained through support groups and clinical collaborators. The identities of the study participants will be known only to Dr. Chakravarti, the study coordinator, physicians in the team and the post-doctoral fellow(s) working directly on the project. DNA, lymphocytes, and lymphoblastoid cell lines may be prepared from the blood samples for future use. Molecular analyses using markers and sequencing and statistical analyses of these data will be used to identify regions of human chromosomes where putative keratoconus disease genes reside. Analyses of coding DNA sequences within genes from keratoconus subjects will be compared to published control sequences to identify disease specific variants. Additionally, to understand disease pathogenesis, subsets of patients may be asked to provide tear samples. Study subjects will not directly benefit from participation and results will not be disclosed to participants nor their health care providers, unless medically relevant.

  Study phs003168

• Advancing Precision Oncology in a Humanized, Fully Autologous Mouse Model

  Progress in the early detection and treatment of cancer requires accurate model systems to further evaluate new, promising discoveries. Small animal and, in particular, mouse model systems are attractive to researchers for numerous reasons, including their ease of use and well-described platforms. The ability to grow human tumors in immune-deficient mice (so-called patient-derived xenografts, or PDXs) allows researchers to work directly with human cancer tissue in a controlled setting. However, PDX models are limited by their lack of an intact immune system. Immunotherapy has revolutionized clinical oncology, but lacks pre-clinical models of the human immune system and human cancer to investigate new modalities and limitations/toxicities of treatment regimens. The broad objective of this study is to validate an in vivo model to evaluate human tumors in the context of a complete and intact human immune system in a completely personalized and autologous fashion to study cancer immunotherapy. Herein, we will: (1) validate the ability of our humanized system to serve as a model for cancer immunotherapy treatment response and toxicity in patients with melanoma, including immunotherapy checkpoint blockade and vaccine strategies, and (2) extend our current work in melanoma by validating the ability to establish humanized mice and evaluate tumor growth and leukocyte development in autologous human pancreatic and colorectal tumors established in humanized mice. In each of these areas, we will leverage our multi-institutional team's individual expertise along with our institutional infrastructure to maximize the success of the experimental aims. The results from this project will be widely available to the general research community for future, hypothesis-driven research. Taken together, our study will meet multiple goals and address several unmet needs in cancer immunotherapy, thus significantly enhancing the applicability of a fully autologous and immunocompetent precision model system for use in translational oncology research.

  Study phs003090

• Best Practices for DACs

  Best Practices Data access committees (DACs) are institutional safeguards responsible for ensuring a balance between data protection and accessibility. However, there are no procedural standards that apply across DACs, which can lead to inconsistencies in their reviews and compromise their quality and effectiveness. Standardising DAC processes can foster trust and mutual recognition, paving the way for greater coordination, collaboration, and delegation between DACs and other oversight bodies to improve the efficiency of data access without sacrificing protection. To provide guidance, the following are suggestions for actions a DAC might take upon receiving a data access request: Aim to respond to all initial requests in less than 2 weeks. Failure to do so may result in follow-up emails from the EGA, journals, and ultimately dataset withdrawal. First, check that the data/EGAD number is consistent with your data submission. In other words, ensure that the requester has contacted the correct DAC. Verify that the user will be using the data within the terms of consent by asking them to sign up to the terms within the DAA. Ensure that data users who are granted access to the data comply with the terms of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) and to use the data only in approved ways. Look for an institutional email address for the requester. Search for evidence that the requester is "appropriately qualified/bona fide" for using the data, for example on PubMed, Research Gate, LinkedIn, etc. Confirm that the affiliated organisation is real and that the requester still works there. Inquire with the requester about who should have accounts created at the EGA under the terms of the agreement. If a negative decision is made, promptly communicate it to the requester and support it with the terms of the Data Access Policy that the requester has not met or cannot meet. Keep the information in the DAC up to date. If you leave your institution and are unable to manage data access requests on their behalf, you should add your replacement as a new contact in the DAC. Assist with data access requests for any further questions related to your data. The EGA can only check information that has been deposited in the repository. If the user has a specific question that the EGA cannot answer, we will redirect the user to the DAC. All the EGA studies and datasets referenced in a publication under your DAC must be publicly searchable on the EGA website before the paper is released. If possible, describe the permitted purposes for subsequent research projects, including associated limits and conditions, for all resources hosted in a repository using a common ontology, such as the GA4GH Data Use Ontology (DUO). It is considered best practice to try and release data only to those with an institutional email address. This gives reassurance to the EGA, research participants, and the general public that an appropriate individual is accessing and using the data. 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.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/best-practices

• Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the &#8220;Authorized Access&#8221; section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives The Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) was designed to evaluate the hypothesis that amiodarone or a conservatively programmed shock-only, single-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) would decrease the risk of death from any cause in a broad population of patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure. Background Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) can die suddenly and unpredictably from arrhythmia despite the use of proven medical therapies, such as beta-blockade. Two approaches have been developed to prevent sudden death among patients with CHF: therapy with amiodarone and therapy with an ICD. However, most of the mortality data on amiodarone and ICD therapy at the time of the study had been obtained in clinical trials performed after myocardial infarction in patients without CHF or those with ventricular arrhythmias. Thus, more data was needed to guide these therapies in patients who did not meet these criteria. Participants There were a total of 2521 participants. 847 were randomly assigned to placebo, 845 to amiodarone, and 829 to ICD therapy. Design Before randomization, participants underwent electrocardiography, a 6-minute walk test, 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiography, liver and thyroid function studies, and chest radiography. Participants were required, if clinically reasonable, to receive treatment with a beta-blocker and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, as well as an aldosterone antagonist, aspirin, and statins, when appropriate. Participants were randomly assigned in equal proportions to receive placebo, amiodarone, or a single-chamber ICD programmed to shock-only mode. Participants assigned to amiodarone or matching placebo began therapy as outpatients immediately after randomization. Placebo and amiodarone were administered as a loading dose of 800 mg/day for one week, 400 mg/day for three weeks, and then as a daily maintenance dosage according to weight and bradycardia status. Participants assigned to ICD therapy received their device a median of three days after randomization. The goal of ICD therapy was to treat only rapid, sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Dual-chamber or biventricular devices, or antitachycardia or rate-response pacing therapies were not permitted. The ICD was uniformly programmed to have a detection rate of 187 beats per minute or more. Antibradycardia pacing was initiated only if the intrinsic rate decreased to less than 34 beats per minute. Median follow-up was 45.5 months. The primary end point was death from any cause. Secondary outcome measures included cardiac mortality, arrhythmic mortality, morbidity, quality of life, and incremental cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Each active treatment arm was compared to the placebo drug arm. Conclusions In participants with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35% or less, amiodarone had no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduced overall mortality by 23%.

  Study phs003654

• North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by NextGen Exome Sequencing (NCGENES)

  North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-generation Exome Sequencing This study is part of a larger consortium project investigating the validity and best use of next-generation sequencing (in particular, whole exome sequencing, or WES) in clinical care. Participants are patients who were either seen in the UNC Cancer and Adult Genetics Clinic or referred to the study by their physician. They will be approached by their physician or a genetic counselor for recruitment. Once enrolled, a clinical geneticist or genetic counselor will obtain consent and collect blood samples to be analyzed using WES. Results may include information related to a diagnosis and incidental information. Medically actionable incidental findings will be CLIA-certified and returned to participants in a routine genetic counseling session, along with diagnostic findings. Eligible adult participants will be randomized to have the opportunity to choose to get certain types of non-medically actionable incidental findings, as well. Their decisions will be investigated, as will psychosocial and behavioral responses to sequencing and receiving sequencing information. This is a longitudinal, mixed methods study (i.e., multiple assessments pre- and post-return of results, with both quantitative and qualitative methods used to gather data). Because only the quantitative component of the study uses randomization, only measures and procedures associated with that component are included here. The third study release includes data of additional n=189 subjects.

  Study phs000827

• GWAS for Genetic Determinants of Bone Fragility in European-American Premenopausal Women

  Osteoporotic fractures are largely due to an increased propensity to fall with aging and a reduction in bone strength. Although skeletal architecture contributes to fracture risk, bone mineral density (BMD) is the most important determinant of bone strength and fracture risk. Between 60 and 80% of the variance of BMD of adult Caucasian women is due to heritable factors. Final BMD is a function of peak bone mass attained during young adulthood and the subsequent rate of bone loss, which occurs as a result of both post-menopausal estrogen loss and aging. The evidence for a genetic contribution to rate of loss in BMD is substantially weaker than that for peak BMD. Therefore, we have focused our sample collection on the recruitment of premenopausal women, in whom we have sought to identify the genes influencing peak BMD at the spine and hip, the two major skeletal sites of osteoporotic fracture. The primary goal of this study is to identify genes that affect peak BMD in premenopausal women. Identification of these genes may: 1) lead to molecular tests that predict risk of osteoporosis and allow institution of early preventive measures; 2) provide insight into basic bone cell biology and other factors that affect peak BMD; and 3) provide molecular targets for therapeutic agents to increase BMD.

  Study phs000138

• MAESTRO-Pool Enables Highly Parallel and Specific Mutation-Enrichment Sequencing for Minimal Residual Disease Detection in Cohort Studies

  MAESTRO-Pool builds upon the technology MAESTRO (Minor Allele Enriched Sequencing Through Recognition Oligonucleotides) by pooling tumor-specific MAESTRO probes from multiple patients and applying these to all samples from all patients. In this study, MAESTRO-Pool was applied to a cohort of 9 melanoma patients where 98 plasma samples were screened for 22,333 mutations. Additionally, a new dynamic minimal residual disease (MRD) caller was used to estimate the likelihood of MRD detection based on the number mutations and cell-free DNA molecules interrogated which allowed each bespoke MRD test to be properly calibrated against false detection. These developments led to sensitive detection in patient-matched samples down to 0.78 parts per million (ppm) while limiting false detection in negative controls to 1/784 (tumor fraction=2.7 ppm). MAESTRO-Pool and the dynamic MRD caller enable a unique blend of sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency, which will improve the ability to detect MRD.The data contained in this repository consists of:Tumor and normal whole genome sequencing data used to call patient-specific tumor mutations and design the MRD Tracker and MAESTRO-Pool fingerprintsMAESTRO-Pool data (enriched duplex sequencing via hybrid capture) of tumor gDNA, normal gDNA and cfDNA MRD Tracker data (duplex sequencing via hybrid capture) of tumor gDNA, normal gDNA and cfDNA

  Study phs003447

• Localised colon cancer WES study contaning WBCs, tissue and plasma samples at different time points

  Decision-making based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) status following curative-intent surgery in stage II-III colon cancer (CC) is where the strongest clinical evidence lies. Commercial or academic assays are predominantly used to detect ctDNA, aiming to reveal minimal residual disease (MRD) and identify patients at high risk of recurrence. However, while current tests demonstrate exceptional specificity in detecting MRD among patients who later experience recurrence, their sensitivity is notably limited, particularly immediately after surgery when decisions regarding ACT are crucial. Additionally, up to 70% of patients with stage II-III colon cancer fail to clear ctDNA after standard adjuvant treatment (ACT) and subsequently experience recurrence. In this study, we performed whole exome sequencing (WES) of ctDNA at different timepoints in relapsed CC patients using two independent cohorts, alongside transcriptomic and proteomic analyses of metastases to gain a deeper understanding of progression mechanisms. An assay based on a tumor-agnostic approach from WES could enhance sensitivity in detecting MRD disease compared to current assays. Immune evasion appears to be the primary driver of progression in the localized CC setting, facilitated by a functional mutational burden at relapse. This suggests that immunotherapy could extend its efficacy to patients with microsatellite stability, broadening treatment options. Moreover, organoid modeling affirms the promising potential of targeted therapy to surpass conventional treatments in eradicating MRD.

  Study EGAS50000000204