12293 results for "free coins ultimate team Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..G9vn"

in 15.49 milliseconds.

• Cell-free DNA and bone marrow samples from myelodysplastic syndromes

  We have assessed the molecular profile of a cohort of 70 patients with MDS by next-generation sequencing (NGS) using cfDNA and compared the results to paired bone marrow (BM) DNA.

  Dataset EGAD00001008567

• Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations (RADx-UP): COVID-19 Testing and Vaccination Social Network Diffusion for Diverse Criminal Legal Involved Communities

  This RADx-UP Phase II proposal, "Social network diffusion of COVID-19 prevention for diverse Criminal Legal Involved Communities", will implement a situation appropriate COVID-19 testing and vaccination social network diffusion intervention - C3 - building upon RADx-UP Phase I lessons and successful social network prevention interventions developed previously by the research team. C3 Criminal Legal Involved (CLI) populations encompass those non-incarcerated who have experienced recent arrest, incarceration, probation, parole or diversion programs such as drug courts. While increases in COVID-19 testing have been observed among this group, there remain members with limited testing history as well as individuals who are vaccine hesitant. COVID-19 prevention messaging can no longer be simplified to "everyone test and/or everyone vaccinate" as testing and vaccination decisions among community members are sensitive to personal histories (i.e., prior infection), local infection rates (i.e., low rates) and testing/vaccination availability. As COVID-19 prevention efforts have become more complicated (i.e., test if exposed), people tend to focus on the messenger, and particularly those that are close to them. Personal connections and communications within existing personal network structures, such as families, friends and other trusted acquaintances represent the cornerstone to increase situation appropriate testing and overcoming COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. C3 builds upon RADx-UP I, by using a network diffusion approach facilitated through motivational interviewing purposefully geared to mobilize one's own organic social network to increase context appropriate testing and vaccine uptake. Through this process we will maximize the primary benefit and impact of this type of intervention which also has the intended effect of increasing likelihood that the messenger themselves will undergo the same behavior change that they have been trained to promote. We will leverage infrastructure developed in RADx-UP Phase I, which includes 4 high-impact sites across the Central US from Phase I: Baton Rouge LA, Little Rock AR, Indianapolis IN, and Chicago IL. We will utilize established engagement efforts already in place and continue to fully integrate communities in the strategic application of the intervention. We will use the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to guide implementation. C3 aims to: Aim 1a. Test the efficacy (3-month situation appropriate testing or vaccination) of a network diffusion intervention (C3) versus an existing COVID-19 testing and vaccine linkage to care intervention among: 1) primary study participants (primary outcome); and 2) secondary study participants connected to primary participants (secondary outcome) using a RCT design. Aim 1b. Explore the mechanisms for differential intervention effects at the individual and network-level that may increase situation appropriate testing and/or vaccination uptake. Aim 2. Examine key RE-AIM components in real time tied to the implementation of the network diffusion intervention (C3).

  Study phs003234

• Ipilimumab plus Decitabine for Patients with MDS or AML in Post-Transplant or Transplant Naïve Settings

  Design and AimsThis study was a phase 1 clinical trial investigating the combination of ipilimumab (IPI), a CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitor, and decitabine (DEC), a hypomethylating agent, for treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The goal was to determine whether DEC could enhance the immune response to IPI without causing excessive immune toxicity. This study provides important insights into the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors with hypomethylating agents in treating high-risk MDS/AML and highlights the need for further research on optimizing immune-based therapies in these settings.Population InformationPost-HSCT arm: 25 patients (23 AML, 2 MDS; all relapsed/refractory).Transplant-naïve arm: 23 patients (15 AML, 8 MDS; 20 relapsed/refractory, 3 untreated).Data available through dbGaPDeidentified individual participant data, Multiplex immunofluorescence staining, Olink, RNA-Seq and Whole Exome SequencingPrincipal FindingsSafety & Tolerability: The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for IPI was determined to be 10 mg/kg, though higher doses were associated with increased immune-related adverse events (irAEs).Efficacy: The overall response rate (ORR) was higher in transplant-naïve patients (52%) compared to post-HSCT patients (20%).Responses were more frequent at higher IPI doses (10 mg/kg). Some patients achieved durable remission (>1 year), often linked to irAE development.Toxicity: The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events included neutropenia (32%-48%), thrombocytopenia (28%-48%), and febrile neutropenia (36%-61%). irAEs were observed in 44%-48% of patients, with GVHD occurring only in the post-HSCT group.Survival Outcomes: Median overall survival and progression-free survival did not significantly differ between the two arms. However, in transplant-naïve patients, 1-year survival was higher in those who developed irAEs (72.7%) versus those who did not (33.3%).

  Study phs003292

• How to use EGA Webin?

  EGA Webin EGA Webin serves as a platform for registering metadata for array based submissions, large scale sequence submission as well as for legacy EGA submission accounts (ega-box-XXXX). For large scale submitters of sequence data you have also the option to submit metadata via XMLS programmatic submission, while new submitters are advised to utilise the Submitter Portal for their submissions. 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. WEBIN actions: Register metadata for a sequence submission Register study, samples, experiments, runs, DAC, policy and dataset/s after file upload. Register components for your array-based metadata submission Register study, samples, DAC or policy before uploading files. Edit existing submission metadata Change or update previously submitted metadata. Register metadata for a sequence submission Ensure that all sequence files have been encrypted before uploading them to your submission account using the EgaCryptor. Go to the EGA Webin and log in using your submission account name (ega-box-XXX) and password. Register components of your metadata submission Study Samples Data Access Committee (DAC) Data access policy Dataset For array-base submissions: Study, Samples, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy may all be registered BEFORE file upload and dataset registration through the array-base template. Register your Study Go to the “Studies (Projects)” box Click on “Register Study” and fill in the information related to your study. Click on “Submit”, this will save the information and generate an EGA study ID. To use the study accession number in a publication, the study has to be previously released on the EGA website, 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 and “The European Genome-phenome Archive in 202 "(10.1093/nar/gkab1059)" Register your Samples Go to the “Samples” box Click on “Register Samples” Select “Download spreadsheet to register samples” and customise your template, there is a default EGA template (EGA default checklist) but more attributes can be added if required. For the EGA default checklist, there are mandatory,recommended and optional attributes. As well custom fields which can be added if required. Mandatory attributes Field Name Description tax_id Taxonomy ID of the organism as in the NCBI Taxonomy database. Entries in the NCBI Taxonomy database have integer taxon IDs. See our tips for sample taxonomy here scientific_name Scientific name of the organism as in the NCBI Taxonomy database. Scientific names typically follow the binomial nomenclature. For example, the scientific name for humans is Homo sapiens. sample_alias Unique name of the sample. If not selected system will auto generate an unique alias sample_title Title of the sample sample_description Description of the sample phenotype *** Where possible, please use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe your phenotypes. Recommended attributes Field Name Description subject_id Identifier for the subject where the sample has been derived from gender * Sex Optional attributes Field Name Description sex sex of the organism from which the sample was obtained disease_site Affected organ sample type Affected organ donor_id ** Identifier of the donor where the sample has been derived from *Gender should be described as 'male', 'female' or 'unknown'. If 'unknown' due to a known sex chromosome aneuploidy, please create a user defined attribute called 'Sex chromosome karyotype' and add the appropriate value, for example, 'XXY'. **Donor id (Subject id) should be a de-identified subject handle. If unknown, please add 'unknown' to the field. ***Phenotypes should, where possible, be an Experimental Factor Ontology accession. If a term cannot be found to describe your phenotype please use free text. All sample phenotypes considered important for further analysis of the data should be provided (for example, tumour type), additional phenotype attributes can be created by defining your own attributes; use the notion 'phenotype2', 'phenotype3', etc. After you have customised the fields for the sample submission, download the template and fill in the information. Example of the sample template: Finally upload the sample template to get the EGA accession IDs for the samples. Register your Data Access Committee (DAC) Further information on the role of your DAC Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Dacs” Input the information about the DAC and register at least one main DAC contact. Register your Data Access 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 (DAC). Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Policies” Select the DAC to which this policy will be linked to and fill in the policy information. Submitting your Runs and Analyses This section is only for sequence data submission, for array-based submission it can be skipped. Please refer to our Submitting array based metadata Runs Registration Go to the “Raw Reads (Experiments and Runs)” box Click on “Submit Reads” Select “Download spreadsheet template for Read submission” Select the template corresponding to your submission type For the templates you have the option to customise the optional fields. To check their description click on “Show Description “ Download the template and fill in the required information. Example of the runs template: We recommend that Fastq, BAM, and CRAM read files are submitted using Webin-CLI When using this interface instead of Webin-CLI, raw sequences must be uploaded in one of the supported data formats before they can be submitted. The files can be uploaded using FTP or Aspera. The study and the sequenced samples must be pre-registered before the raw reads are submitted. Please note that each individual study and sample should be registered only once. You will be asked to provide information about the sequencing libraries and instruments. Submitting your Dataset This section is only for sequence data submissions, for array based submissions it can be skipped. Please refer to our Submitting array based metadata The dataset describes the data files, defined by the run (EGARXXXXXXXXXXX) and analysis (EGAZXXXXXXXXXXX) accessions that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Data Access Committee and Data Access Policy. As a result, you must have registered your Reads and experiments, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy before submitting your Dataset. Please consider the number of datasets that your submission consists of, for example, a case control study is likely to consist of at least two datasets. In addition, we suggest that multiple datasets should be described for studies using the same samples but different sequence technologies. Please contact EGA Helpdesk for further assistance. Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Dataset” Select the Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy Register your dataset After submitting your dataset you should contact the EGA Helpdesk to provide a release date for your dataset. Datasets are automatically held (i.e. not released) unless they are affiliated to a study that has already been released. Edit/update existing submission metadata Go to the “Report” section of the object you would like to edit. Locate the object and click on the arrow under action. An option menu will be displayed. Objects can be edited through their XML or with the WEBIN menu. After an object has been edited, changes would be available on the website until the submission is released again. Please contact the EGA Helpdesk if you require further assistance.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/EGA_webin

• 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

• Clinical Outcomes by Tumor Mutational Burden and Inflammatory Gene Expression With Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Advanced Melanoma_CM67-RNASeq

  Purpose Exploratory analyses of CheckMate 066 and 067 trials were conducted to investigate associations of tumor mutational burden (TMB), a 4-gene inflammatory gene expression signature, and BRAF mutation status with tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients with known programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and BRAF mutation status received nivolumab (NIVO) or dacarbazine in CheckMate 066 and either NIVO, ipilimumab (IPI), or NIVO+IPI in CheckMate 067. Whole exome sequencing and RNA sequencing were used to determine TMB and inflammatory gene expression signature scores, respectively. These biomarkers were evaluated in terms of their association with PFS and OS. Results In the NIVO, NIVO+IPI, and IPI arms of CheckMate 067, longer survival was associated with high (> median) versus low (≤ median) TMB with hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for PFS of 0.45 (0.30–0.65), 0.55 (0.38–0.81), and 0.60 (0.43–0.82), and for OS of 0.46 (0.30–0.71), 0.53 (0.34–0.82), and 0.52 (0.36–0.74), respectively. For NIVO-treated patients, these results were confirmed in CheckMate 066. A survival benefit was observed with high TMB and absence of BRAF mutation. Survival was associated with high versus low inflammatory signature scores with HRs (95% CI) for PFS of 0.56 (0.34–0.94), 0.40 (0.23–0.72), and 0.43 (0.27–0.70), and for OS of 0.37 (0.20–0.66), 0.38 (0.19–0.74), and 0.46 (0.27–0.79), in the NIVO, NIVO+IPI, and IPI arms, respectively. Weak correlations were observed between PD-L1, TMB, and the inflammatory signature. Conclusions Combined assessment of TMB, inflammatory gene expression signature, and BRAF mutation status may be predictive for response to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma.

  Dataset EGAD00001006306

• Clinical Outcomes by Tumor Mutational Burden and Inflammatory Gene Expression With Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Advanced Melanoma - CM066-WES

  Purpose Exploratory analyses of CheckMate 066 and 067 trials were conducted to investigate associations of tumor mutational burden (TMB), a 4-gene inflammatory gene expression signature, and BRAF mutation status with tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients with known programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and BRAF mutation status received nivolumab (NIVO) or dacarbazine in CheckMate 066 and either NIVO, ipilimumab (IPI), or NIVO+IPI in CheckMate 067. Whole exome sequencing and RNA sequencing were used to determine TMB and inflammatory gene expression signature scores, respectively. These biomarkers were evaluated in terms of their association with PFS and OS. Results In the NIVO, NIVO+IPI, and IPI arms of CheckMate 067, longer survival was associated with high (> median) versus low (≤ median) TMB with hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for PFS of 0.45 (0.30–0.65), 0.55 (0.38–0.81), and 0.60 (0.43–0.82), and for OS of 0.46 (0.30–0.71), 0.53 (0.34–0.82), and 0.52 (0.36–0.74), respectively. For NIVO-treated patients, these results were confirmed in CheckMate 066. A survival benefit was observed with high TMB and absence of BRAF mutation. Survival was associated with high versus low inflammatory signature scores with HRs (95% CI) for PFS of 0.56 (0.34–0.94), 0.40 (0.23–0.72), and 0.43 (0.27–0.70), and for OS of 0.37 (0.20–0.66), 0.38 (0.19–0.74), and 0.46 (0.27–0.79), in the NIVO, NIVO+IPI, and IPI arms, respectively. Weak correlations were observed between PD-L1, TMB, and the inflammatory signature. Conclusions Combined assessment of TMB, inflammatory gene expression signature, and BRAF mutation status may be predictive for response to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma.

  Dataset EGAD00001006309

• CTN - 0051: Extended-Release Naltrexone vs. Buprenorphine for Opioid Treatment (X:BOT)

  The overarching goal of CTN-0051 is to foster adoption of new relapse-prevention pharmacotherapies in community-based treatment programs (CTPs) where these could have a substantial public health impact. To this end CTN-0051 will assess the comparative effectiveness of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX, Vivitrol®), an opioid antagonist recently approved and indicated for the prevention of relapse to opioid dependence, versus buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX, Suboxone®), a high affinity partial agonist indicated for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence, as pharmacotherapeutic aids to recovery. The study is conducted in 8 CTN-affiliated CTPs that provide or partner with detoxification services (inpatient/residential) which have the capacity to maintain participants opioid-free for approximately 3-7 days, have the capacity to provide medication-assisted therapy, and can provide a minimum of one group or individual counseling session per week during the 24-week treatment period. Up to 600 eligible participants will be randomized to treatment with XR-NTX or BUP-NX for 24 weeks (sufficient to include 350 participants who are randomized more than 72 hours after their last opioid). To maximize generalizability, the point of randomization is flexible, from shortly after program admission until just prior to program discharge. The primary goal of the study is to estimate the difference, if one exists, between XR-NTX and BUP-NX in the distribution of the time to relapse (i.e., loss of persistent abstinence) during the 6-month trial. The primary outcome measure is the time to the event, with the event called relapse. Secondary objectives are to: (1) compare outcome on XR-NTX versus BUP-NX across a range of clinical safety and secondary efficacy domains, (2) explore demographic, clinical, and genetic predictors of successful treatment and moderators of differential effectiveness (i.e., what variables may help clinicians choose which of these treatments is best for a given patient), and (3) collect a limited dataset to permit analyses of economic costs and benefits of the two treatments.

  Study phs002876

• FIGHT-207: Anonymized Genomic Alterations and Clinical Responses

  Background: FIGHT-207 was a phase 2 study of the FGFR1-FGFR3 inhibitor pemigatinib in patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic or unresectable solid tumor malignancies harboring activating fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) gene alterations. Population information: 107 patients were divided into 3 cohorts: FGFR1–FGFR3 fusions/rearrangements; n=49 Activating FGFR1–FGFR3 non-kinase domain single nucleotide variants (SNVs); n=32 FGFR1–FGFR3 kinase domain mutations or variants of unknown significance (VUS) with potential pathogenicity; n=26 Participants on study had tumors that were grouped into the following histologies based on ≥ 5 patients: Cholangiocarcinoma, gynecologic cancers (cervical, endometrial, uterine), central nervous system (glioblastoma, low-grade pediatric glioma, astrocytoma), pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, urothelial tract/bladder cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and other (adrenal cancer, anal cancer, cancer of unknown primary origin, colorectal cancer, gastric/gastroesophageal cancer, gallbladder cancer, giant cell bone tumor, head and neck cancer, lung neuroendocrine cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, renal cell cancer, sarcoma, solitary fibrous tumor). Among the efficacy-evaluable participants, 99 had both independent review committee (IRC) central best overall response (BOR) and tissue NGS- data; 2 additional patients had Not Evaluable (NE) as central BOR Baseline tissue targeted NGS data (F1CDx, Foundation Medicine Inc.) of genomic alterations are reported for N=101 participants Baseline plasma targeted NGS analysis (PredicineCare, Predicine Inc.) of genomic data are reported for N=83 participants; data at disease-progression are reported for N=78 participants. Principal Findings: The FIGHT-207 study provided evidence of clinical benefit of pemigatinib in multiple histologies, explored the clinical actionability of various FGFR1-FGFR3 gene alterations, and leveraged the depth of translational data from targeted NGS analysis of baseline samples and plasma samples obtained at baseline and end of treatment to provide key insights into the biology of FGFR inhibition and the clinical utility of FGFR inhibitors. The FIGHT-207 article (pending in Nat.Med. NMED-A128973B) reports evidence suggesting clinical acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition via secondary FGFR mutations as well as emerging co-mutations in other oncogenic and tumor suppressor pathways. This study also provides evidence of acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition in multiple histologies beyond cholangiocarcinoma and urothelial cancers in a systemic correlative analysis of post-progression ctDNA in a trial. Data available through dbGaP: Anonymized information for 101 participants with both IRC central BOR evaluation (including 2 patients with NE as BOR) and tissue NGS data, including tumor histology, enrollable FGFR alteration, and outcome. Genomic alterations determined by baseline tissue NGS (F1CDx, Foundation Medicine Inc.) Genomic alterations determined by plasma NGS analysis (PredicineCare, Predicine Inc.) of ctDNA analysis at baseline (n=83) and at end of treatment/ disease progression (n=78) including genomic alterations that were not assessed to be Germline SNPs.

  Study phs003590

• Whole Transcriptome Sequencing of Resectable Stage III/IV Melanoma Evaluated After Starting Hu14.18-IL2 Predicts Outcome

  Background: We analyzed whole transcriptome sequencing in tumors from 23 patients with stage III or IV melanoma from a pilot trial of the anti-GD2 immunocytokine, hu14.18-IL2, to identify predictive immune and/or tumor biomarkers in melanoma patients at high risk for recurrence. Methods: Patients were randomized to receive the first of 3 monthly-courses of hu14.18-IL2 immunotherapy either before (Group A) or after (Group B) complete surgical resection of all known disease. Tumors were evaluated by histology and whole transcriptome sequencing. Results: We report here that tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) levels directly associate with relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in resected tumors from Group A, where early responses to the immunotherapy agent could be assessed. TIL levels directly associated with a previously reported immune signature which associated with RFS and OS, particularly in Group A tumors. In Group A tumors there were decreased cell cycling gene RNA transcripts, but increased RNA transcripts for repair and growth genes. We found that outcome (RFS and OS) was directly associated with several immune signatures and immune-related RNA transcripts and inversely associated with several tumor growth-associated transcripts, particularly in Group A tumors. Most of these associations were not seen in Group B tumors. Conclusion: We interpret these data to signify that both immunologic and tumoral cell processes, as measured by RNAseq analyses detected shortly after initiation of hu14.18-IL2 therapy are associated with long term survival and could potentially be used as prognostic biomarkers in tumor resection specimens obtained after initiating neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Note: RNA sequences and expression data can be found at NCBI GEO GSE133713

  Study phs001947