17516 results for "free coins in fc 26 Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..Y2KA"

in 189.38 milliseconds.

• Genomics to select patients with metastatic breast cancer for targeted therapy (microarray_oncoscan)

  Cancer progression is driven in part by genomic alterations located in oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. The genomic characterization of cancers has shown a large interpatient heterogeneity regarding the driver alterations, leading to the concept that generating a genomic profiling by multigene sequencing in patients with cancer could allow selecting effective targeted therapies. While this concept has been broadly implemented in daily practice, there is no evidence that such approach improves patient outcome, and how to optimally select the therapy to administer. A genomic profiling using next generation sequencing and copy number analyses was performed 1462 patients with Her2-non overexpressing metastatic breast cancer included in SAFIR02 Breast trial. 238 of these patients were randomized in two trials between a targeted therapy matched to genomic alteration and a maintenance chemotherapy. The trial shows that targeted therapies matched to genomics improves progression free survival (PFS) when genomic alterations are classified level I/II according to ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) (adjusted HR: 0.41, 90% CI: 0.27-0.61, p<0.001), but not when alterations are classified beyond level II (unadjusted HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.76-1.75). This trial provides evidence that the treatment decision led by genomics should be driven by a framework of target actionability in patients with mBC.

  Study EGAS00001005586

• Genome-wide DNA-methylation assessment by MethylCap-seq and Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChips: an independent large-scale comparison

  DNA-methylation is an important epigenetic feature in health and disease. Two cost-efficient genome-scale methodologies to assess DNA-methylation are MethylCap-seq and Illumina's Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChips (HM450). However, objective information regarding the best-suited methodology for a specific research question is scant. Therefore, we performed a large-scale evaluation on a set of 70 brain tissue samples obtained from 65 glioblastoma and 5 non-tumoral brain tissues, using a gold standard free Bayesian modeling procedure. While conditional specificity was adequate for both approaches, conditional sensitivity was systematically higher for HM450. Also the genome-wide characteristics were compared, revealing that the HM450 probes assess less than 10% of the regions identified as methylated by MethylCap-seq. Hence the latter method may detect more potentially relevant DNA-methylation, defined by either functional location or previously reported differentially methylated candidate regions. Our results therefore indicate that – at least for the tissue under study - both methodologies are complementary, with a higher sensitivity for HM450, but a far larger genome-wide coverage for MethylCap-seq. Note that here only the relevant MethylCap-seq data is deposited, for the HM450 data we refer to GEO (GSE60274).

  Study EGAS00001001191

• NIBIT-EPI-MESO study samples

  Multi-omics analysis of pre-immuno checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) therapy lesions from 91 pleural mesothelioma (PM) patients enrolled in the multicenter NIBIT-EPI-MESO study. Neoplastic lesions were characterized using multiple molecular platforms, including RNA sequencing (n=82), Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) (n=87), Reduced Representation Bisulfite Sequencing (RRBS) (n=83) and cell-free methylated immunoprecipitation sequencing (cfMeDIP-seq) (n=18). Tumor samples were collected during the standard diagnostic pleuroscopy or thoracoscopy before ICI therapy. Matched Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells (PBMC) were collected from PM patients before ICI therapy.

  Study EGAS50000001478

• Covid19 WGS Raw Read files

  The Samples were collected from Saint James's Hospital, Dublin and after informed consent Extracted Genomic DNA samples were prepared and sequenced using the Automated Illumina TruSeq PCR-free methodology.

  Study EGAS00001007106

• VESPA: Vanderbilt Electronic Systems for Pharmacogenomic Assessment

  The Vanderbilt Electronic Systems for Pharmacogenomic Assessment (VESPA) Project is a large electronic medical record (EMR)- and biobank-based initiative for translational pharmacogenomics discoveries. Key research resources utilized in this effort include the BioVU DNA databank and associated Synthetic Derivative database of clinical information, and software tools developed to identify drugs and clinical events using EHR-derived structured and unstructured ("free text") data. Cohorts include subjects with primarily drug-response phenotypes, and most cases and controls identified include three data types: ICD-9 codes, medication regimens, and medical test results. Advanced informatics methods, such as natural language processing, were also used for some phenotypes. Algorithms used event-sequence analyses to establish temporal relationships between drugs and phenotypes. Both cases and control algorithms excluded records that contained specific comorbidities and were refined to achieve positive predictive value (PPV) > 90%. For automated algorithms failing to meet this threshold, manual review was coupled with algorithms to validate that the included cases were true positives. A total of 11,639 subjects met phenotyping criteria for a least one of the 28 phenotypes investigated. Across all phenotypes cases and controls, 90% were reused as either a case or control for a least one other phenotype. Data are deposited for individual phenotypes in the VESPA substudies. Substudies: VESPA: Genome Wide Association Study of Serum Creatinine during Vancomycin Therapy and Vancomycin Pharmacokinetics - phs000894 VESPA: Genome Wide Study of Clinically Diagnosed Ace Inhibitor Cough - phs000992

  Study phs000991

• FEGA FAQs: a summary of the Q+A session from the FEGA workshop at ELIXIR AHM 2024

  The ELIXIR All Hands Meeting (AHM) was held in Uppsala, Sweden this June. We at EGA always look forward to this meeting as a chance to see many of our partners and colleagues face-to-face. The Federated EGA (FEGA) is one initiative that always benefits from the AHM, and this year FEGA was in the spotlight, with several questions related to the advances we've made recently. We held this year's FEGA workshop a little differently, with most time for discussions on various “hot topics”. Organised in different breakouts, over 2 rounds, participants could choose which session they wanted to attend. One breakout was a general Q+A about FEGA and the path to join. We had a diverse range of participants, including experts from Central EGA (CEGA) and FEGA inaugural nodes, people from up and coming nodes at various stages of readiness, as well as participants not directly a part of FEGA but curious to learn more. It made for a great discussion! In this blog post, we highlight some of the questions for those who didn’t have a chance to be there. What is the FEGA Collaboration Agreement? It is a legal agreement between the node and Central EGA (CEGA) where both parties agree to certain responsibilities, like what services will be provided, sharing of public metadata with CEGA, interoperable technologies and more. The agreement is for 4 years, with the expectation of long-term sustainability. If a node is made up of multiple institutes, one institute must be the signatory. This could require a legal agreement within the node. CEGA is composed of CRG and EMBL-EBI (EGA itself has its own legal agreement between these institutes) Check the FEGA Collaboration Agreement What about purely medical data? Is this accepted in FEGA? CEGA only accepts data approved for secondary research use. We do accept medical data collected in this context, as do some nodes. Nodes are able to accept any data they like, as long as it is sensitive, thus in need of controlled access. What about other data types other than genomics? Like proteomics or images? They can be accepted, although CEGA is currently not designed with those formats in mind, so they might not fit with precision in the data model. The FEGA nodes are welcome to accept any data they want. Proteomic studies generating sensitive data are increasing, and specific work will likely be developed in the near future to adress this need. Does CEGA require a certain amount or type of data to be shared by the node? No, we do not and it's up to each node to decide what specific data types they accept and in what format. Nonetheless, a FEGA node has the duty to be open to data submission from any institution of their country, and can't be limited by design to a single or limited data source. Does CEGA and FEGA require a certain amount or type of details and description on the data to be submitted to the node? Data description (technical and biological), usually called metadata in this field, is crucial for the findability of the submitted data. Thus, we highly recommend including as much information as available to maximise the discoverability of the data. Specifical minimal metadata is defined in the submission schema, and thresholds are specified by the nodes. We are currently working towards a unified FEGA metadata model. What are the geographical borders of FEGA? FEGA should make the E for Everyone, because any institute worldwide could join and we indeed do have countries and use-cases worldwide. Some of them are very close to officially joining the federation. What are the main differences between FEGA and GDI? The two networks have a lot in common and also some critical differences. You can read all about this in one of our latest blog post. If you have more questions, please consider having a look at the FEGA onboarding webpage and, of course, don't miss our workshop at the ELIXIR AHM next year!

  Blog fega-faqs-elixir-ahm-2024

• Whole genome sequencing data of lung adenocarcinomas

  This dataset includes the whole-genome sequencing data from a study entitled "Tracing Oncogene Rearrangements in the Mutational History of Lung Adenocarcinoma". Whole-genome sequencing libraries were generated by PCR-free methods, and sequencing run was made in HiSeq X Ten machines. PCR duplicates-marked, indel-realigned, and base-recalibrarted BAM files are provided in our dataset.

  Dataset EGAD00001004793

• Cell-Free DNA Genomic Profiling and its Clinical Implementation in Advanced Prostate Cancer

  Sixty-eight patients with advanced prostate cancer in castration-resistant or castration-sensitive settings undergoing treatment at the University Hospital Basel or the St. Claraspital Basel (Switzerland) were selected for targeted parallel sequencing analysis on liquid biopsy (plasma cfDNA) and matched formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue samples. The liquid biopsy sequencing (plasma cfDNA) was performed using a custom-designed targeted AmpliSeq HD Prostate Cancer cfDNA panel on all 68 patients. The sequencing on 42 matched FFPE tumor biopsy samples was performed using a custom-designed or an alternative commercial panel (ThermoFisher). Raw data underwent automated processing on the Ion Torrent Server v5.16.1 (ThermoFIsher) and were aligned to a hg19 reference genome using the Torrent Alignment Software (ThermoFihser).

  Dataset EGAD50000000348

• A proof-of-concept study of sequential treatment with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat following BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAFV600 mutated melanoma

  "Purpose: Development of resistance limits the clinical benefit of BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAFi/MEKi) in BRAFV600 mutated melanoma. It has been shown that short-term treatment (14 days) with vorinostat was able to initiate apoptosis of the resistant tumor cells. We aimed to assess the anti-tumor activity of sequential treatment with vorinostat following BRAFi/MEKi in patients with BRAFV600 melanoma who progressed after initial response to BRAFi/MEKi. Patients and Methods: Patients with BRAFi/MEKi resistant BRAFV600 melanoma were treated with vorinostat 360 mg QD for 14 days followed by BRAFi/MEKi. The primary endpoint was an objective response rate of progressive lesions of at least 30% according to RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, pharmacokinetics of vorinostat and translational molecular analyses using ctDNA and tumor biopsies. Results: Twenty-six patients with progressive BRAFi/MEKi resistant BRAFV600 mutated melanoma received treatment with vorinostat. Twenty-two patients were evaluable for response. The ORR was 9% (one complete response for 31.2 months and one partial response for 14.9 months. Median PFS and OS were 1.4 and 5.4 months, respectively. Common adverse events were fatigue (23%) and nausea (19%). ctDNA analysis showed emerging secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK in eight patients at time of BRAFi/MEKi resistance. Elimination of these mutations by vorinostat treatment was observed in three patients. Conclusions: Intermittent treatment with vorinostat in patients with resistant BRAFV600 mutated melanoma is well tolerated. Although the primary endpoint of this study was not met, durable anti-tumor responses were observed in a minority of patients (9%). "

  Study EGAS00001007709

• Histone chaperone CHAF1A promotes proliferation and tumorigenicity in gastric cancer and impacts prognosis via context-depedent regulation of gene expression

  The histone chaperone CHAF1A is associated with some tumors, but its mechanisms in tumor biology remain elusive. Gastric cancer (GC) has significant heterogeneity among patients, and novel prognostic markers and therapeutic targets may improve its outcomes. The role of CHAF1A in GC is unknown. In this study, we demonstrated that CHAF1A was overexpressed in GC tissues accompanied by low expression of wild-type P53 and high expression of the proliferation marker MKI67. In vitro, CHAF1A knockdown inhibited cell proliferation, induced cell cycle arrest and promoted apoptosis, while CHAF1A overexpression had contrary effects. In vivo, CHAF1A knockdown inhibited tumorigenicity of GC cells. A microarray assay with CHAF1A inhibition and a PathScan signaling antibody array with CHAF1A overexpression showed that CHAF1A inhibited the P53 pathway, activated stress response and induced glycolytic metabolism. In 665 patients, the expression level of CHAF1A protein was an independent predictor for overall survival and disease-free survival in non-cardia GC and also had survival associations in patients with small or perineural invasion-negative tumors. Tumor mRNA analyses based on next-generation sequencing in patients indicated that CHAF1A promoted the Warburg effect by depressing oxidative phosphorylation and increasing glycolysis. Furthermore, the heterogeneous clinical significance of CHAF1A among patient subgroups was associated with its differential regulation of gene expression involved with glycolysis and cell proliferation and survival, indicating that the role of CHAF1A is depended on patient characteristics. These results reveal critical roles and clinical values for CHAF1A in GC. CHAF1A may have context-dependent effects in GC, which increases understandings for GC heterogeneity.

  Study EGAS00001003064