The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four sub-studies. The sub-studies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The IARC and Toronto studies are described above. A description of the Harvard and Liverpool studies is provided below. Liverpool Lung Project: The Liverpool Lung Project (LLP)1 is a case control and cohort study, which has over 11,500 individuals, with detailed epidemiological, clinical and outcome data with associated specimens (i.e. tumour tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage, EBUS and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire and updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Office of National Statistics, Cancer Registry and from Health Episode Statistics. The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The LLP has detailed standard operating procedures (SOP) for all aspects of the recruitment, data, specimen collection as well as the data storage. The LLP Cohort study has 8,224 participants with blood and 7,761 with plasma samples. The LLP case-control samples have been incorporated into in a large number of international GWAS and molecular studies 2,3, methylation 4-7, microRNA 8and next generation studies 9-11, resulting in high ranking publications, as well as forming the basis for the LLP risk prediction model 12-14 which has been utilised in the UK lung cancer screening trial (UKLS) 15-17 Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. Harvard Samples. David Christiani at the Harvard University School of Public Health has been directing research studies to investigate etiological factors influencing lung cancer development since 1983 and has amassed a collection of 2000 controls and 5055 lung cancer cases. He has been actively collecting and storing snap frozen tumor samples since 1992. Around 1500 tumor samples have been collected and the average wet tumor yield is about 30 grams of tumor, of which 631 cases have completely annotated clinical and survival information. Pathology confirmation is provided by two pathologists. At the time of surgery, a minimum of 30 grams of wet lung tumor tissue and 30 grams of non-involved tissue from the same lobe is sectioned, flash frozen and sent to Dr. Christiani's lab for logging and storage. A blood sample for DNA and serum is collected. A structured interview by trained research staff is conducted on each case, and clinical outcomes and treatments is extracted and entered into the molecular epidemiology data base at Harvard. Fresh frozen samples have been collected from 1451 lung cancer and are available for study. Samples from this collaborative study have played key roles in major studies, including the initial finding describing EGFR mutations in lung cancer 22. Participants in this study are patients, > 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed histologically confirmed lung cancer. Samples that are included in the analysis have the following histologies: Adenocarcinoma: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3 8560/3; LCC: 8012/3, 8031/3; squamous carcinoma: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; and other NSCLC: 8010/3, 8020/3, 8021/3, 8032/3, 8230/3. The Toronto Study: The Toronto study was conducted in the Great Toronto Area between 1997 and 2014. Cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of University of Toronto and Lunenfeld- Tanenbaum Research Institute. At the time of recruitment in the clinical setting, provisional diagnoses of lung carcinoma were first assigned based on clinical criteria. Diagnoses for all cases included were histologically confirmed by the reference pathologist who is a specialist in pulmonary pathology, based on review of pathology reports from surgery, biopsy or cytology samples in 100% of cases. Diagnostic classification was done initially according to ICD-9, ICD-10, and ICD for oncology-2, and subsequently converted to ICD-O-3. Tumors were grouped into the major categories included in this analysis according to primary cancer type based on the ICD-3 definitions. Controls were randomly selected from individual visiting family medicine clinics and Ministry of Finance Municipal Tax Tapes. All subjects were interviewed using a standard questionnaire and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history, medical and family history was collected. Blood samples were collected from more than 85% of the subjects. IARC: The IARC data are derived from case-control studies conducted in Russia and include samples that have available tissue samples. Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. The lung cancer patients were classified according to ICD-O-3; SQ: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; AD: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3, 8560/3, 8251/3, 8490/3, 8570/3, 8574/3; with tumous with overlapping histologies classified as mixed. The Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP sub-studies. To view genotypes, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these sub-studies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the "Sub-studies" section of this top-level study page phs000876 Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort. phs000877 Meta Analysis phs000878 CIDR Lung Cancer phs001681 Affy Axiom Array
Objectives: The clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of three interventions. Specifically, it evaluated (1) the major health benefits and risks of estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone, (2) the effects of a low-fat eating pattern on risk of colorectal cancer, and (3) the efficacy of calcium with vitamin D supplementation for preventing hip and other fractures. The objective of the memory study was to determine whether estrogen plus progestin therapy protects global cognitive function, and evaluate the therapy's effect on the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment.The observational study is examining the relationship between lifestyle, socioeconomic, health, and other risk factors with cardiovascular, breast cancer, colorectal cancer and osteoporotic fracture outcomes. Secondary objectives include providing more reliable estimates of the extent to which known risk factors predict disease, more precise estimates of new occurrences of disease, and to provide a future resource for the identification of new or novel risk factors especially factors found in blood. Background: The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing the major causes of death, disability, and frailty in postmenopausal women, specifically heart disease, cancer, and osteoporotic fractures. The WHI is primarily composed of an observational study (OS), as well a clinical trial (CT) with three components: Hormone Replacement Therapy (HT), Dietary Modification, (DM) and Calcium/Vitamin D supplementation (CaD).Prior to the WHI, observational studies suggested that postmenopausal hormone therapy was associated with a decreased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Potential cardioprotection was based on generally supportive data on lipid levels in intermediate outcome clinical trials, trials in nonhuman primates, and a large body of observational studies suggesting a 40% to 50% reduction in risk among users of either estrogen alone or, less frequently, combined estrogen and progestin. Observational studies primarily examining unopposed estrogen preparations have suggested a 30% to 50% reduction in coronary events, and an 8% to 30% increase in breast cancer with extended use. Other research findings indicated that hormone therapy was also associated with a decreased risk of osteoporosis and increased bone density. The WHI HT trials were designed to test the effects of postmenopausal hormone therapy on risk for coronary heart disease and assess overall risks and benefits in predominantly healthy women. The Women's Health Initiative Memory Program (WHIMS) consists of a suite of studies which include cohorts of women who participated in the WHI HT trials. Postmenopausal women have a greater risk than men of developing Alzheimer's disease, but studies of the effects of estrogen therapy on Alzheimer's disease have been inconsistent. Additionally, observational studies have suggested that postmenopausal hormone treatment may improve cognitive function, but data from randomized clinical trials have been sparse and inconclusive. International comparisons and migration studies have suggested that countries with 50% lower fat intake than the US population had approximately one third the risk of colorectal cancer. Additionally, fairly consistent evidence existed for an effect of dietary fat, vegetables and fruits, and grains on colorectal cancer risk from within-country observational studies, although the protective effect of lower fat intake was no longer clear after adjusting for energy intake. The WHI DM trial was the first randomized trial to directly address the health effects of a low-fat eating pattern in predominantly healthy postmenopausal women from diverse racial/ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Osteoporosis is a major cause of injury, loss of independence, and death, and contributes to hip fractures. Observational evidence and data from previous randomized clinical trials suggest that calcium and/or vitamin D supplements may slow bone loss and reduce the risk of falls in postmenopausal and elderly women. However, evidence from trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses of calcium and vitamin D supplementation with respect to hip and other fractures was limited at the time the WHI was initiated. In two prior randomized trials, calcium plus vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk of nonvertebral fractures among older women. When the WHI CaD trial was designed, guidelines recommended daily intakes of 800 to 1200 mg of calcium with 400 IU of vitamin D for the prevention of osteoporosis, which was not met by many American women. Therefore, the WHI CaD trial was designed to test the primary hypothesis that postmenopausal women randomly assigned to calcium plus vitamin D supplementation would have a lower risk of hip fracture and, secondarily, of all fractures than women assigned to placebo. Subjects: Postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 were eligible to participate. A woman was considered postmenopausal if she had experienced no vaginal bleeding for 6 months (12 months for women under 55 years of age), had had a hysterectomy, or had ever used postmenopausal hormones. Recruitment was carried out in 40 US clinical centers in 1993-1998. The clinical trial components had additional specific inclusion or exclusion criteria.A total of 68,132 women were randomized into at least one component of the clinical trial. 27,347 women were enrolled in the hormone therapy component with 16,608 in the estrogen plus progestin trial and 10,739 in the unopposed estrogen trial, 48,835 women were enrolled in the diet modification component, and 36,282 women were enrolled in the calcium/vitamin D component. 7,479 women 65 years of age and older at baseline and that participated in the HT trial component were enrolled in the ancillary memory study. Women who were either ineligible or unwilling to participate in the clinical trial component were enrolled in the observational study. For example, many potential participants to the clinical trial component of the study were already undertaking a low fat diet or were using hormone replacement therapy. The effect of the selection process was that women enrolled in the observational study tended to have healthier lifestyles compared to those enrolled in the clinical trial. In total, 93,676 subjects were enrolled in WHI OS, with over 16% being members of a racial/ethnic minority group. The first WHI Extension Study enrolled 115,407 consenting participants from all components of the original WHI study for an additional five years of follow-up, from 2005 to 2010. In 2010, 93,567 women consented to continued follow-up. Design: The clinical trial component of the WHI included three randomized comparisons: hormone therapy, dietary modification, and calcium/vitamin D supplementation. Women could have been randomized into one, two or all three trials.The hormone therapy trial enrolled women to one of two double-blinded trials: estrogen (0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens daily) plus progestin (2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate daily) or estrogen alone. Women with a prior hysterectomy were eligible for the trial of unopposed estrogen. Women with an intact uterus at screening were initially also eligible for unopposed estrogen, but were reassigned to the trial of combined postmenopausal hormones beginning in 1995. Both trials randomized participants 1:1 to either hormone therapy or placebo. A 3-month washout period was required before baseline evaluation of women using postmenopausal hormones at initial screening. Study participants were contacted by telephone 6 weeks after randomization to assess symptoms and reinforce adherence. Follow-up contacts by telephone or clinic visit occurred every 6 months, with clinic visits required annually. The estrogen plus progestin trial was halted in July 2002 after a mean 5.2 years of follow-up because health risks, including increased risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, exceeded benefits. The estrogen alone trial was stopped early in March 2004, because an increased risk of stroke was found with no benefit for coronary heart disease. The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) (nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death), with invasive breast cancer as the primary adverse outcome. The dietary modification trial evaluated the effect of a low-fat, high fruit, vegetable, and grain diet on preventing cardiovascular disease and cancer. Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or a comparison group in the ratio of 2:3 for cost-efficiency. The intervention was an intensive behavioral modification program, using 18 group sessions in the first year and quarterly sessions thereafter, led by specially trained and certified nutritionists. The program was designed to promote dietary change with the goals of reducing total fat to 20% of energy intake, increasing vegetables and fruits to at least 5 servings daily and grains to at least 6 servings daily. The intervention did not include total energy reduction or weight loss goals. Comparison group participants received a copy of the US Department of Health and Human Services' Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other health-related materials but were not asked to make dietary changes. Dietary intake was monitored using the WHI food frequency questionnaire at 1 year and in a rotating one-third subsample every year thereafter. Women completed a medical update questionnaire every 6 months, and medical records were sought for all women reporting colorectal cancer. The primary outcome was invasive colorectal cancer incidence. Participants in the calcium/vitamin D trial were randomized 1:1 to either supplements or placebo. Active tablets contained 500 mg of elemental calcium (as calcium carbonate) and 200 IU of vitamin D3, to be taken twice daily with meals. The presence and severity of symptoms, safety concerns, and outcomes were ascertained at annual clinic visits and telephone or clinic visits at intervening six-month intervals. Risk factors for fracture were assessed by questionnaire, interview, and clinical examination. The primary outcome was incidence of hip fracture. Participants in the observational study attended a baseline examination and were re-examined three years later. Participants completed annual updates of exposures and clinical outcomes by mail. Final data were collected by mail during the close-out period in April 2004 to March 2005. The major clinical outcomes of interest were coronary heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, osteoporotic fractures, diabetes, and total mortality. Most outcomes were initially ascertained by self-report on an annual questionnaire and documented by hospital and related records. Charts with potential cardiovascular, cancer, and fracture outcomes were sent to the local physician adjudicator for evaluation and classification. Staff at the Clinical Coordinating Center coded and adjudicated all cancers of major interest in the study using standardized SEER guidelines. In 2005, WHI participants were invited to join the Extension Study for an additional five years of follow-up in order to collect long-term outcomes. Participants completed annual data collection forms primarily by mail, similar to the OS follow-up. Women reporting study outcomes were contacted by WHI field center staff to obtain additional details and medical records, which were evaluated by physician adjudicators. In 2010, the woman remaining were invited to join the next Extension Study. In the second extension, women were divided into two groups, one of which would have outcomes documented with medical records (the Medical Records Cohort, MRC), and the other would just be followed by self-report (the Self-Report Cohort, SRC). The MRC consists of women who were in the hormone therapy trials, and all African-American and Hispanic women. In 2012-2013, a subset of the MRC was identified for a potential in-home visit to collect blood and several objective measures of physical functioning. Conclusions: Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin after an average 5.2 year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women (Rossouw et al., 2002, PMID:12117397). Among postmenopausal women aged 65 years or older, estrogen plus progestin did not improve cognitive function when compared with placebo (Rapp et al., 2003, PMID: 12771113), increased the risk for probable dementia, and did not prevent mild cognitive impairment (Shumaker, et al., 2003, PMID: 12771112). The use of conjugated equine estrogen increased the risk of stroke, decreased the risk of hip fracture, and did not affect CHD incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy after an average of 6.8 years of follow-up (Anderson et al., 2004, PMID: 15082697). Over approximately 8 years of follow-up, a low-fat dietary pattern did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (Beresford, et al., PMID: 16467233). Calcium with vitamin D supplementation resulted in a small but significant improvement in hip bone density; however, no significant difference was observed in hip fractures (Jackson, et al., 2006, PMID: 16481635). A recent review summarizes the conclusions from the WHI clinical trials with a focus on clinical practice (Manson, et al., 2024, PMID: 38691368).Description of ECG Imaging Data: Electric cardiograms (ECGs) were given to all clinical trial participants at baseline and in years 3, 6, and 9 of the original WHI study.EKG data consist of 12 lead 10 seconds ECGS sampled at 500Hz via GE ECG machines and process via GE MUSE system. The ECG waveform were directly exported from GE MUSE using MUSE export function in XML format, which include EKG waveform data as well as other ECG characteristics. Waveform data is in base64 encoded format, when it is decoded, it is a binary data that can be used to draw waveform graph. Many programming languages and data tools have built in functions to decode base64 strings. All the other necessary information is included in the LeadData section, total byte size, total sample size etc. (usually 1 sample is 2 bytes). See example below: encoded-data (base64 encoded string) JwAoAC0AKAAiACIAJAAkACQAIwAiACIAHgAcABwAGwAZABgAGAAYABcAEwAQABAAEAAL^/AAsADAAM... decoded-binary-data (1 sample is 2 bytes) 270028002D002800220022002400240024002300220022001E001C001C001B00 1900180018001800170013001000100010000B000B000C000C000D000D000D00 0A000A000A0009000600040004000700070005000500020... These binary values are integers (Y axis data of the graph), hence it is a straightforward process to draw the waveform graph. Acquisition dates have been redacted from this ECG data to comply with WHI policy. All acquisition dates within files and in file names have been set to January 1, 1900 (19000101) to comply with this policy.
The IMagyn050 trial (NCT03038100), which evaluated the efficacy of Atezo vs placebo (Pla) with carboplatin, paclitaxel and bevacizumab (CPB) in front line ovarian cancer patient (pts), did not meet its co-primary endpoints of PFS in ITT or PD-L1+ (Moore et al. JCO 2021). The aim of this exploratory study was to evaluate whether patients with BRCA1/2-mutated or homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) ovarian cancers benefitted from atezolizumab in the phase III IMagyn050 (NCT03038100) trial. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer were randomized to either atezolizumab or placebo with standard chemotherapy and bevacizumab. PD-L1 status of tumor-infiltrating immune cells was determined centrally (VENTANA SP142 assay). Genomic alterations, including deleterious BRCA1/2 alterations, genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH), tumor mutation burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI), were evaluated using the FoundationOne assay. HRD was defined as gLOH ≥16%, regardless of BRCA1/2 mutation status. Potential associations between progression-free survival (PFS) and genomic biomarkers were evaluated using standard correlation analyses and log-rank of Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results Among biomarker-evaluable samples, 22% (234/1050) harbored BRCA1/2 mutations and 46% (446/980) were HRD. Median TMB was low irrespective of BRCA1/2 or HRD. Only 3% (29/1024) had TMB ≥10 mut/Mb and 0.3% (3/1022) were MSI-high. PFS was better in BRCA2-mutated versus BRCA2-non-mutated tumors and in HRD versus proficient tumors. PD-L1 positivity (≥1% expression on immune cells) was associated with HRD but not BRCA1/2 mutations. PFS was not improved by adding atezolizumab in BRCA2-mutated or HRD tumors; there was a trend toward enhanced PFS with atezolizumab in BRCA1-mutated tumors. Conclusion Most ovarian tumors have low TMB despite BRCA1/2 mutations or HRD. Neither BRCA1/2 mutation nor HRD predicted enhanced benefit from atezolizumab. This is the first randomized double-blind trial in ovarian cancer demonstrating that genomic instability triggered by BRCA1/2 mutation or HRD is not associated with improved sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors.
The goal of this study was to identify and characterize germline and somatic genetic variation in women with high grade serous ovarian cancers treated at a single cancer center and their associations with relapse-free and overall survival. We conducted paired tumor/normal targeted next-generation sequencing of 577 genes in pathways of DNA repair, response to DNA damage, cell-cycle regulation, programmed cell death, MAPK, and P13K/AKT/MTOR signaling in 114 tumors from 71 women. In addition, we investigated single copy number alterations (SCNAs) and loss of heterozygosity in a subset of 61 tumors. We validated our results with data from ovarian tumors in TCGA. Our results were similar to other studies of high-grade serous carcinomas. As an example, we found that approximately one third of the tumors harbored loss of function variants in homologous recombination genes and that >90% had TP53 somatic mutations. Through GISTIC analysis of the OncoScan data on tumor DNA from 61 cases, we identified several regions of high copy number alterations including including NOTCH3 and PIK3R2 that were significantly associated with an increase in cancer recurrence and a reduction in overall survival. We identified few changes in mutation profiles where we had multiple tissues, either from multiple surgeries or from the primary site to metastatic sites within the same surgery. However, we did not investigate copy number alterations in multiple tissues from the same individuals, and so it may be that copy number alterations are more important. Data available through dbGAP will be the BAM files and the phenotypic data on the tumor samples, the age, race, ethnicity of the participants and their outcomes, and the Oncoscan OSCHP files.
Background: Endocrine therapy is highly effective in blocking the estrogen receptor pathway in HR+/HER2- early breast cancer (EBC). However, up to 40% of patients experience relapse during or after adjuvant endocrine therapy. Here, we investigate molecular mechanisms associated with primary resistance to endocrine therapy and develop predictive models. Results: TP53 mutations were prominently associated with primary resistance to both tamoxifen (TAM) and aromatase inhibitors (AI), with AI non-responders exhibiting resistance in up to 32% of cases. Additionally, we identified distinct DNA methylation patterns in TAM and AI non-responders, with TAM non-responders showing global DNA methylation loss, associated with KRAS signaling, apical junctions and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Conversely, we observed methylation gain in AI non-responders affecting developmental transcription factors, hypoxia and estrogen signaling. TAM or AI resistance was associated with increased methylation-inferred proportions of immune cells and decreased proportions of endothelial cells. Based on these findings and patient age, we developed the Predictive Endocrine ResistanCe Index (PERCI). PERCI stratified NR and R cases in both treatment groups and cohorts with high accuracy (ROC AUC TAM discovery 93.9%, validation 83%; AI discovery 98.6%, validation 76.9%). A simplified PERCI efficiently predicted progression-free survival in the TCGA-BRCA sub-cohort (Kaplan-Meier log-rank p-value = 0.03 between low and high PERCI groups). Conclusions: We identified genomic and epigenomic features associated with primary resistance to TMA and AI. By combining information on genomic alterations, patient age, differential methylation and tumor microenvironment (TME) composition, we developed PERCI TAM and PERCI AI as novel predictors of primary resistance, with potential additional prognostic value. Applying PERCI in a clinical setting may allow patient-specific drug selection to overcome resistance.
About What's the EGA? The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) is a global network for permanent archiving and sharing of personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data generated for the purposes of biomedical research projects or in the context of research-focused healthcare systems. Jointly managed by the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) in Cambridge (UK) and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) in Barcelona, we aim to advance biomedical research and promote personalised medicine worldwide by enabling discovery of and access to human genomic and health research data. The EGA contains data collected from individuals whose consent agreements authorise data release for specific research use to bona fide researchers. We ensure strict security measures to control access to the data and maintain patient confidentiality. With expertise in data management and technical infrastructure, we promote FAIR data reuse and enable researchers to share their data securely. By leveraging public funding and our strategic partnerships, the EGA provides a free service for permanent data storage, data discovery, and secure data access. In addition, we foster a federated network to provide transnational access to human research data in compliance with legal frameworks. For additional information about the EGA, please contact: Helen Parkinson and Mallory Freeberg EMBL European Bioinformatics Institute Arcadi Navarro, Roderic Guigó, and Jordi Rambla Center for Genomic Regulation History The European Genome-phenome Archive was launched in 2008 at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), an outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), to address an identified need for archiving and sharing the results of genome-wide association studies from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. With the signing of a memorandum of understanding in 2013 and a formal agreement in 2016, the EGA became a joint project of EMBL-EBI and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG). The two institutes work together to support the EGA services, including supporting submissions, website, strategic leadership, and data infrastructure developments. In 2022, the Federated EGA was officially launched with the signature of the first five countries: Finland, Germany, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. With more than 20 additional nodes worldwide preparing to join, the Federated EGA aims to become the largest human omics data sharing initiative towards understanding human health and disease. EGA overview If you're a researcher you may need to deposit, manage, or access genomic data in a secure and regulated way. The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) is a platform that facilitates these processes, ensuring that sensitive data is stored and shared in accordance with legal and ethical regulations. Submission process To start a submission, you need to become an EGA submitter. For that, youll need to sign a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) with us, that defines the terms and conditions under which your data will be processed and shared within the EGA system. The access to each study is controlled by its Data Access Committee (DAC). The DAC is responsible for managing data access requests and ensuring that the release of data is in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Please, note that once your data is released, all public metadata related to your study and dataset(s) will be searchable on the EGA website. However, the files are only accessible under controlled access, which means that a DAC has to agree to a previous data access request. Request process It is possible to submit an access request to data stored at the EGA. The DAC assigned to the study will assess the request and, if approved, grant access to the data. Requesters must provide sufficient justification for your request and comply with the intended data usage in order to get access to it. Each dataset is covered by a Data Access Agreement (DAA) that defines the terms and conditions of use for the specified dataset/s. The DAA is created and provided by the DAC, and must be signed by the individual requesting access to the given dataset/s. Download process Once the request for access is approved, the data and metadata can be downloaded. The EGA offers various download options to fit the needs: it is possible to preview files without downloading them, download specific files of interest, or even download terabytes of data. Overall, the EGA provides a secure and regulated environment for depositing, managing, and accessing human data. Regardless of the role - submitter, DAC member, or requester - the EGA provides assistance for each while ensuring that sensitive data is managed in an ethical and responsible manner. More information on how EGA handles data is available in the EGA dataflow.
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.
Original description of the study: From ELLIPSE (linked to the PRACTICAL consortium), we contributed ~78,000 SNPs to the OncoArray. A large fraction of the content was derived from the GWAS meta-analyses in European ancestry populations (overall and aggressive disease; ~27K SNPs). We also selected just over 10,000 SNPs from the meta-analyses in the non-European populations, with a majority of these SNPs coming from the analysis of overall prostate cancer in African ancestry populations as well as from the multiethnic meta-analysis. A substantial fraction of SNPs (~28,000) were also selected for fine-mapping of 53 loci not included in the common fine-mapping regions (tagging at r2>0.9 across ±500kb regions). We also selected a few thousand SNPs related with PSA levels and/or disease survival as well as SNPs from candidate lists provided by study collaborators, as well as from meta-analyses of exome SNP chip data from the Multiethnic Cohort and UK studies. The Contributing Studies: Aarhus: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Patients treated for prostate adenocarcinoma at Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby (Aarhus, Denmark). Source of controls: Age-matched males treated for myocardial infarction or undergoing coronary angioplasty, but with no prostate cancer diagnosis based on information retrieved from the Danish Cancer Register and the Danish Cause of Death Register. AHS: Nested case-control study within prospective cohort. Source of cases: linkage to cancer registries in study states. Source of controls: matched controls from cohort ATBC: Prospective, nested case-control. Source of cases: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline. Source of controls: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline BioVu: Cases identified in a biobank linked to electronic health records. Source of cases: A total of 214 cases were identified in the VUMC de-identified electronic health records database (the Synthetic Derivative) and shipped to USC for genotyping in April 2014. The following criteria were used to identify cases: Age 18 or greater; male; African Americans (Black) only. Note that African ancestry is not self-identified, it is administratively or third-party assigned (which has been shown to be highly correlated with genetic ancestry for African Americans in BioVU; see references). Source of controls: Controls were identified in the de-identified electronic health record. Unfortunately, they were not age matched to the cases, and therefore cannot be used for this study. Canary PASS: Prospective, Multi-site, Observational Active Surveillance Study. Source of cases: clinic based from Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, Eastern Virginia Medical School, University of California at San Francisco, University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio, University of Washington, VA Puget Sound. Source of controls: N/A CCI: Case series, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Cross Cancer Institute. Source of controls: N/A CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): Case-Control, Prospective, Observational, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients, treated in French departments of Urology, who had histologically confirmed prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were recruited as participating in a systematic health screening program and found unaffected (normal digital rectal examination and total PSA < 4 ng/ml, or negative biopsy if PSA > 4 ng/ml). COH: hospital-based cases and controls from outside. Source of cases: Consented prostate cancer cases at City of Hope. Source of controls: Consented unaffected males that were part of other studies where they consented to have their DNA used for other research studies. COSM: Population-based cohort. Source of cases: General population. Source of controls: General population CPCS1: Case-control - Denmark. Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPCS2: Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPDR: Retrospective cohort. Source of cases: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Source of controls: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center ACS_CPS-II: Nested case-control derived from a prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Identified through self-report on follow-up questionnaires and verified through medical records or cancer registries, identified through cancer registries or the National Death Index (with prostate cancer as the primary cause of death). Source of controls: Cohort participants who were cancer-free at the time of diagnosis of the matched case, also matched on age (±6 mo) and date of biospecimen donation (±6 mo). EPIC: Case-control - Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK. Source of cases: Identified through record linkage with population-based cancer registries in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and UK. In Germany and Greece, follow-up is active and achieved through checks of insurance records and cancer and pathology registries as well as via self-reported questionnaires; self-reported incident cancers are verified through medical records. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer EPICAP: Case-control, Population-based, ages less than 75 years at diagnosis, Hérault, France. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all public hospitals and private urology clinics of département of Hérault in France. Cases validation by the Hérault Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Population-based controls, frequency age matched (5-year groups). Quotas by socio-economic status (SES) in order to obtain a distribution by SES among controls identical to the SES distribution among general population men, conditionally to age. ERSPC: Population-based randomized trial. Source of cases: Men with PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam. Source of controls: Men without PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam ESTHER: Case-control, Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all hospitals in the state of Saarland, from 2001-2003. Source of controls: Random sample of participants from routine health check-up in Saarland, in 2000-2002 FHCRC: Population-based, case-control, ages 35-74 years at diagnosis, King County, WA, USA. Source of cases: Identified through the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER cancer registry. Source of controls: Randomly selected, age-frequency matched residents from the same county as cases Gene-PARE: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients that received radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. Source of controls: n/a Hamburg-Zagreb: Hospital-based, Prospective. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases seen at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. Source of controls: Population-based (Croatia), healthy men, older than 50, with no medical record of cancer, and no family history of cancer (1st & 2nd degree relatives) HPFS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the HPFS cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the HPFS cohort IMPACT: Observational. Source of cases: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. Source of controls: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has not been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. IPO-Porto: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Early onset and/or familial prostate cancer. Source of controls: Blood donors Karuprostate: Case-control, Retrospective, Population-based. Source of cases: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 237 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending public and private urology clinics; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 148 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa. Source of controls: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 277 controls recruited from men participating in a free systematic health screening program open to the general population; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 134 controls recruited from subjects attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa KULEUVEN: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases recruited at the University Hospital Leuven. Source of controls: Healthy males with no history of prostate cancer recruited at the University Hospitals, Leuven. LAAPC: Subjects were participants in a population-based case-control study of aggressive prostate cancer conducted in Los Angeles County. Cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program rapid case ascertainment system. Eligible cases included African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White men diagnosed with a first primary prostate cancer between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2003. Eligible cases also had (a) prostatectomy with documented tumor extension outside the prostate, (b) metastatic prostate cancer in sites other than prostate, (c) needle biopsy of the prostate with Gleason grade ≥8, or (d) needle biopsy with Gleason grade 7 and tumor in more than two thirds of the biopsy cores. Eligible controls were men never diagnosed with prostate cancer, living in the same neighborhood as a case, and were frequency matched to cases on age (± 5 y) and race/ethnicity. Controls were identified by a neighborhood walk algorithm, which proceeds through an obligatory sequence of adjacent houses or residential units beginning at a specific residence that has a specific geographic relationship to the residence where the case lived at diagnosis. Malaysia: Case-control. Source of cases: Patients attended the outpatient urology or uro-onco clinic at University Malaya Medical Center. Source of controls: Population-based, age matched (5-year groups), ascertained through electoral register, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia MCC-Spain: Case-control. Source of cases: Identified through the urology departments of the participating hospitals. Source of controls: Population-based, frequency age and region matched, ascertained through the rosters of the primary health care centers MCCS: Nested case-control, Melbourne, Victoria. Source of cases: Identified by linkage to the Victorian Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer MD Anderson: Participants in this study were identified from epidemiological prostate cancer studies conducted at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the Houston Metropolitan area. Cases were accrued in the Houston Medical Center and were not restricted with respect to Gleason score, stage or PSA. Controls were identified via random-digit-dialing or among hospital visitors and they were frequency matched to cases on age and race. Lifestyle, demographic, and family history data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. MDACC_AS: A prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Men with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer meeting eligibility criteria for a prospective cohort study of active surveillance at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Source of controls: N/A MEC: The Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) is comprised of over 215,000 men and women recruited from Hawaii and the Los Angeles area between 1993 and 1996. Between 1995 and 2006, over 65,000 blood samples were collected from participants for genetic analyses. To identify incident cancer cases, the MEC was cross-linked with the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries in California and Hawaii, and unaffected cohort participants with blood samples were selected as controls MIAMI (WFPCS): Prostate cancer cases and controls were recruited from the Departments of Urology and Internal Medicine of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine using sequential patient populations as described previously (PMID:15342424). All study subjects received a detailed description of the study protocol and signed their informed consent, as approved by the medical center's Institutional Review Board. The general eligibility criteria were (i) able to comprehend informed consent and (ii) without previously diagnosed cancer. The exclusion criteria were (i) clinical diagnosis of autoimmune diseases; (ii) chronic inflammatory conditions; and (iii) infections within the past 6 weeks. Blood samples were collected from all subjects. MOFFITT: Hospital-based. Source of cases: clinic based from Moffitt Cancer Center. Source of controls: Moffitt Cancer Center affiliated Lifetime cancer screening center NMHS: Case-control, clinic based, Nashville TN. Source of cases: All urology clinics in Nashville, TN. Source of controls: Men without prostate cancer at prostate biopsy. PCaP: The North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is a multidisciplinary population-based case-only study designed to address racial differences in prostate cancer through a comprehensive evaluation of social, individual and tumor level influences on prostate cancer aggressiveness. PCaP enrolled approximately equal numbers of African Americans and Caucasian Americans with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer from North Carolina (42 counties) and Louisiana (30 parishes) identified through state tumor registries. African American PCaP subjects with DNA, who agreed to future use of specimens for research, participated in OncoArray analysis. PCMUS: Case-control - Sofia, Bulgaria. Source of cases: Patients of Clinic of Urology, Alexandrovska University Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria, PrCa histopathologically confirmed. Source of controls: 72 patients with verified BPH and PSA<3,5; 78 healthy controls from the MMC Biobank, no history of PrCa PHS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort PLCO: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Men with a confirmed diagnosis of prostate cancer from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. Source of controls: Controls were men enrolled in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial without a diagnosis of cancer at the time of case ascertainment. Poland: Case-control. Source of cases: men with unselected prostate cancer, diagnosed in north-western Poland at the University Hospital in Szczecin. Source of controls: cancer-free men from the same population, taken from the healthy adult patients of family doctors in the Szczecin region PROCAP: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were ascertained from the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-Up Study, a retrospective nationwide cohort study of patients with localized prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PROGReSS: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases from the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain. Source of controls: Cancer-free men from the same population ProMPT: A study to collect samples and data from subjects with and without prostate cancer. Retrospective, Experimental. Source of cases: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals. Source of controls: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals ProtecT: Trial of treatment. Samples taken from subjects invited for PSA testing from the community at nine centers across United Kingdom. Source of cases: Subjects who have a proven diagnosis of prostate cancer following testing. Source of controls: Identified through invitation of subjects in the community. PROtEuS: Case-control, population-based. Source of cases: All new histologically-confirmed cases, aged less or equal to 75 years, diagnosed between 2005 and 2009, actively ascertained across Montreal French hospitals. Source of controls: Randomly selected from the Provincial electoral list of French-speaking men between 2005 and 2009, from the same area of residence as cases and frequency-matched on age. QLD: Case-control. Source of cases: A longitudinal cohort study (Prostate Cancer Supportive Care and Patient Outcomes Project: ProsCan) conducted in Queensland, through which men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer from 26 private practices and 10 public hospitals were directly referred to ProsCan at the time of diagnosis by their treating clinician (age range 43-88 years). All cases had histopathologically confirmed prostate cancer, following presentation with an abnormal serum PSA and/or lower urinary tract symptoms. Source of controls: Controls comprised healthy male blood donors with no personal history of prostate cancer, recruited through (i) the Australian Red Cross Blood Services in Brisbane (age range 19-76 years) and (ii) the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (age and post-code/ area matched to ProsCan, age range 54-90 years). RAPPER: Multi-centre, hospital based blood sample collection study in patients enrolled in clinical trials with prospective collection of radiotherapy toxicity data. Source of cases: Prostate cancer patients enrolled in radiotherapy trials: CHHiP, RT01, Dose Escalation, RADICALS, Pelvic IMRT, PIVOTAL. Source of controls: N/A SABOR: Prostate Cancer Screening Cohort. Source of cases: Men >45 yrs of age participating in annual PSA screening. Source of controls: Males participating in annual PSA prostate cancer risk evaluations (funded by NCI biomarkers discovery and validation grant), recruited through University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and affiliated sites or through study advertisements, enrolment open to the community SCCS: Case-control in cohort, Southeastern USA. Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: SCCS entry population. Source of controls: SCCS entry population SCPCS: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: South Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Health Care Financing Administration beneficiary file SEARCH: Case-control - East Anglia, UK. Source of cases: Men < 70 years of age registered with prostate cancer at the population-based cancer registry, Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Centre, East Anglia, UK. Source of controls: Men attending general practice in East Anglia with no known prostate cancer diagnosis, frequency matched to cases by age and geographic region SNP_Prostate_Ghent: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Men treated with IMRT as primary or postoperative treatment for prostate cancer at the Ghent University Hospital between 2000 and 2010. Source of controls: Employees of the University hospital and members of social activity clubs, without a history of any cancer. SPAG: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Guernsey. Source of controls: Guernsey STHM2: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PCPT: Case-control from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial SELECT: Case-cohort from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial TAMPERE: Case-control - Finland, Retrospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Identified through linkage to the Finnish Cancer Registry and patient records; and the Finnish arm of the ERSPC study. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer UGANDA: Uganda Prostate Cancer Study: Uganda is a case-control study of prostate cancer in Kampala Uganda that was initiated in 2011. Men with prostate cancer were enrolled from the Urology unit at Mulago Hospital and men without prostate cancer (i.e. controls) were enrolled from other clinics (i.e. surgery) at the hospital. UKGPCS: ICR, UK. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Royal Marsden hospital and nationwide NCRN hospitals. Source of controls: Ken Muir's control- 2000 ULM: Case-control - Germany. Source of cases: familial cases (n=162): identified through questionnaires for family history by collaborating urologists all over Germany; sporadic cases (n=308): prostatectomy series performed in the Clinic of Urology Ulm between 2012 and 2014. Source of controls: age-matched controls (n=188): age-matched men without prostate cancer and negative family history collected in hospitals of Ulm WUGS/WUPCS: Cases Series, USA. Source of cases: Identified through clinics at Washington University in St. Louis. Source of controls: Men diagnosed and managed with prostate cancer in University based clinic. Acknowledgement Statements: Aarhus: This study was supported by the Danish Strategic Research Council (now Innovation Fund Denmark) and the Danish Cancer Society. The Danish Cancer Biobank (DCB) is acknowledged for biological material. AHS: This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (Z01CP010119). ATBC: This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH and the National Cancer Institute. Additionally, this research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service contracts N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004, HHSN261201000006C, and HHSN261201500005C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. BioVu: The dataset(s) used for the analyses described were obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's BioVU which is supported by institutional funding and by the National Center for Research Resources, Grant UL1 RR024975-01 (which is now at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant 2 UL1 TR000445-06). Canary PASS: PASS was supported by Canary Foundation and the National Cancer Institute's Early Detection Research Network (U01 CA086402) CCI: This work was awarded by Prostate Cancer Canada and is proudly funded by the Movember Foundation - Grant # D2013-36.The CCI group would like to thank David Murray, Razmik Mirzayans, and April Scott for their contribution to this work. CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): None reported COH: SLN is partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Endowed Professorship COSM: The Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Foundation CPCS1 & CPCS2: Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK-2730 Herlev, DenmarkCPCS1 would like to thank the participants and staff of the Copenhagen General Population Study for their important contributions. CPDR: Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences HU0001-10-2-0002 (PI: David G. McLeod, MD) CPS-II: The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study II cohort. CPS-II thanks the participants and Study Management Group for their invaluable contributions to this research. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution to this study from central cancer registries supported through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries, and cancer registries supported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program. EPIC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by the Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); the Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, Greek Ministry of Health; Greek Ministry of Education (Greece); the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC) and National Research Council (Italy); the Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF); the Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); the Health Research Fund (FIS), Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, Spanish Ministry of Health ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020), Red de Centros RCESP, C03/09 (Spain); the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Scientific Council and Regional Government of Skåne and Västerbotten, Fundacion Federico SA (Sweden); the Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council (United Kingdom). EPICAP: The EPICAP study was supported by grants from Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Ligue départementale du Val de Marne; Fondation de France; Agence Nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (ANSES). The EPICAP study group would like to thank all urologists, Antoinette Anger and Hasina Randrianasolo (study monitors), Anne-Laure Astolfi, Coline Bernard, Oriane Noyer, Marie-Hélène De Campo, Sandrine Margaroline, Louise N'Diaye, and Sabine Perrier-Bonnet (Clinical Research nurses). ERSPC: This study was supported by the DutchCancerSociety (KWF94-869,98-1657,2002-277,2006-3518, 2010-4800), The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW-002822820, 22000106, 50-50110-98-311, 62300035), The Dutch Cancer Research Foundation (SWOP), and an unconditional grant from Beckman-Coulter-HybritechInc. ESTHER: The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. The ESTHER group would like to thank Hartwig Ziegler, Sonja Wolf, Volker Hermann, Heiko Müller, Karina Dieffenbach, Katja Butterbach for valuable contributions to the study. FHCRC: The FHCRC studies were supported by grants R01-CA056678, R01-CA082664, and R01-CA092579 from the US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. FHCRC would like to thank all the men who participated in these studies. Gene-PARE: The Gene-PARE study was supported by grants 1R01CA134444 from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, PC074201 and W81XWH-15-1-0680 from the Prostate Cancer Research Program of the Department of Defense and RSGT-05-200-01-CCE from the American Cancer Society. Hamburg-Zagreb: None reported HPFS: The Health Professionals Follow-up Study was supported by grants UM1CA167552, CA133891, CA141298, and P01CA055075. HPFS are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. IMPACT: The IMPACT study was funded by The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, CR-UK Project grant (C5047/A1232), Cancer Australia, AICR Netherlands A10-0227, Cancer Australia and Cancer Council Tasmania, NIHR, EU Framework 6, Cancer Councils of Victoria and South Australia, and Philanthropic donation to Northshore University Health System. We acknowledge support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Foundation NHS Trust. IMPACT acknowledges the IMPACT study steering committee, collaborating centres, and participants. IPO-Porto: The IPO-Porto study was funded by Fundaçäo para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT; UID/DTP/00776/2013 and PTDC/DTP-PIC/1308/2014) and by IPO-Porto Research Center (CI-IPOP-16-2012 and CI-IPOP-24-2015). MC and MPS are research fellows from Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro, Núcleo Regional do Norte. SM is a research fellow from FCT (SFRH/BD/71397/2010). IPO-Porto would like to express our gratitude to all patients and families who have participated in this study. Karuprostate: The Karuprostate study was supported by the the Frech National Health Directorate and by the Association pour la Recherche sur les Tumeurs de la ProstateKarusprostate thanks Séverine Ferdinand. KULEUVEN: F.C. and S.J. are holders of grants from FWO Vlaanderen (G.0684.12N and G.0830.13N), the Belgian federal government (National Cancer Plan KPC_29_023), and a Concerted Research Action of the KU Leuven (GOA/15/017). TVDB is holder of a doctoral fellowship of the FWO. LAAPC: This study was funded by grant R01CA84979 (to S.A. Ingles) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Malaysia: The study was funded by the University Malaya High Impact Research Grant (HIR/MOHE/MED/35). Malaysia thanks all associates in the Urology Unit, University of Malaya, Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation (CARIF) and the Malaysian Men's Health Initiative (MMHI). MCCS: MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057, 251553, and 504711, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. MCC-Spain: The study was partially funded by the Accion Transversal del Cancer, approved on the Spanish Ministry Council on the 11th October 2007, by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FEDER (PI08/1770, PI09/00773-Cantabria, PI11/01889-FEDER, PI12/00265, PI12/01270, and PI12/00715), by the Fundación Marqués de Valdecilla (API 10/09), by the Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC) Scientific Foundation and by the Catalan Government DURSI grant 2009SGR1489. Samples: Biological samples were stored at the Parc de Salut MAR Biobank (MARBiobanc; Barcelona) which is supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III FEDER (RD09/0076/00036). Also sample collection was supported by the Xarxa de Bancs de Tumors de Catalunya sponsored by Pla Director d'Oncologia de Catalunya (XBTC). MCC-Spain acknowledges the contribution from Esther Gracia-Lavedan in preparing the data. We thank all the subjects who participated in the study and all MCC-Spain collaborators. MD Anderson: Prostate Cancer Case-Control Studies at MD Anderson (MDA) supported by grants CA68578, ES007784, DAMD W81XWH-07-1-0645, and CA140388. MDACC_AS: None reported MEC: Funding provided by NIH grant U19CA148537 and grant U01CA164973. MIAMI (WFPCS): ACS MOFFITT: The Moffitt group was supported by the US National Cancer Institute (R01CA128813, PI: J.Y. Park). NMHS: Funding for the Nashville Men's Health Study (NMHS) was provided by the National Institutes of Health Grant numbers: RO1CA121060. PCaP only data: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052. For HCaP-NC follow-up data: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. For studies using both PCaP and HCaP-NC follow-up data please use: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) and the Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study are carried out as collaborative studies supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052 and the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS, respectively. For any PCaP data, please include: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP study for their important contributions. For studies using PCaP DNA/genotyping data, please include: We would like to acknowledge the UNC BioSpecimen Facility and LSUHSC Pathology Lab for our DNA extractions, blood processing, storage and sample disbursement (https://genome.unc.edu/bsp). For studies using PCaP tissue, please include: We would like to acknowledge the RPCI Department of Urology Tissue Microarray and Immunoanalysis Core for our tissue processing, storage and sample disbursement. For studies using HCaP-NC follow-up data, please use: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the HCaP-NC study for their important contributions. For studies that use both PCaP and HCaP-NC, please use: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP and HCaP-NC studies for their important contributions. PCMUS: The PCMUS study was supported by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, Ministry of Education and Science (contract DOO-119/2009; DUNK01/2-2009; DFNI-B01/28/2012) with additional support from the Science Fund of Medical University - Sofia (contract 51/2009; 8I/2009; 28/2010). PHS: The Physicians' Health Study was supported by grants CA34944, CA40360, CA097193, HL26490, and HL34595. PHS members are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. PLCO: This PLCO study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIHPLCO thanks Drs. Christine Berg and Philip Prorok, Division of Cancer Prevention at the National Cancer Institute, the screening center investigators and staff of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We thank Mr. Thomas Riley, Mr. Craig Williams, Mr. Matthew Moore, and Ms. Shannon Merkle at Information Management Services, Inc., for their management of the data and Ms. Barbara O'Brien and staff at Westat, Inc. for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We also thank the PLCO study participants for their contributions to making this study possible. Poland: None reported PROCAP: PROCAP was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation (08-708, 09-0677). PROCAP thanks and acknowledges all of the participants in the PROCAP study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Björkman and Ami Rönnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skilful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. We acknowledge The NPCR steering group: Pär Stattin (chair), Anders Widmark, Stefan Karlsson, Magnus Törnblom, Jan Adolfsson, Anna Bill-Axelson, Ove Andrén, David Robinson, Bill Pettersson, Jonas Hugosson, Jan-Erik Damber, Ola Bratt, Göran Ahlgren, Lars Egevad, and Roy Ehrnström. PROGReSS: The PROGReSS study is founded by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Health (INT15/00070; INT16/00154; FIS PI10/00164, FIS PI13/02030; FIS PI16/00046); the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (PTA2014-10228-I), and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER 2007-2013). ProMPT: Founded by CRUK, NIHR, MRC, Cambride Biomedical Research Centre ProtecT: Founded by NIHR. ProtecT and ProMPT would like to acknowledge the support of The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK. Cancer Research UK grants (C8197/A10123) and (C8197/A10865) supported the genotyping team. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research which funds the Cambridge Bio-medical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Cancer Research Prostate Cancer: Mechanisms of Progression and Treatment (PROMPT) collaborative (grant code G0500966/75466) which has funded tissue and urine collections in Cambridge. We are grateful to staff at the Welcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Addenbrooke's Clinical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK for their help in conducting the ProtecT study. We also acknowledge the support of the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, the DOH HTA (ProtecT grant), and the NCRI/MRC (ProMPT grant) for help with the bio-repository. The UK Department of Health funded the ProtecT study through the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (projects 96/20/06, 96/20/99). The ProtecT trial and its linked ProMPT and CAP (Comparison Arm for ProtecT) studies are supported by Department of Health, England; Cancer Research UK grant number C522/A8649, Medical Research Council of England grant number G0500966, ID 75466, and The NCRI, UK. The epidemiological data for ProtecT were generated though funding from the Southwest National Health Service Research and Development. DNA extraction in ProtecT was supported by USA Dept of Defense award W81XWH-04-1-0280, Yorkshire Cancer Research and Cancer Research UK. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of all members of the ProtecT study research group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health of England. The bio-repository from ProtecT is supported by the NCRI (ProMPT) Prostate Cancer Collaborative and the Cambridge BMRC grant from NIHR. We thank the National Institute for Health Research, Hutchison Whampoa Limited, the Human Research Tissue Bank (Addenbrooke's Hospital), and Cancer Research UK. PROtEuS: PROtEuS was supported financially through grants from the Canadian Cancer Society (13149, 19500, 19864, 19865) and the Cancer Research Society, in partnership with the Ministère de l'enseignement supérieur, de la recherche, de la science et de la technologie du Québec, and the Fonds de la recherche du Québec - Santé.PROtEuS would like to thank its collaborators and research personnel, and the urologists involved in subjects recruitment. We also wish to acknowledge the special contribution made by Ann Hsing and Anand Chokkalingam to the conception of the genetic component of PROtEuS. QLD: The QLD research is supported by The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia Project Grants (390130, 1009458) and NHMRC Career Development Fellowship and Cancer Australia PdCCRS funding to J Batra. The QLD team would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the urologists, pathologists, data managers and patient participants who have generously and altruistically supported the QLD cohort. RAPPER: RAPPER is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1094/A11728; C1094/A18504) and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre funding (C1467/A7286). The RAPPER group thank Rebecca Elliott for project management. SABOR: The SABOR research is supported by NIH/NCI Early Detection Research Network, grant U01 CA0866402-12. Also supported by the Cancer Center Support Grant to the Cancer Therapy and Research Center from the National Cancer Institute (US) P30 CA054174. SCCS: SCCS is funded by NIH grant R01 CA092447, and SCCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). Data on SCCS cancer cases used in this publication were provided by the Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry; Kentucky Cancer Registry, Lexington, KY; Tennessee Department of Health, Office of Cancer Surveillance; Florida Cancer Data System; North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, North Carolina Division of Public Health; Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry; Louisiana Tumor Registry; Mississippi Cancer Registry; South Carolina Central Cancer Registry; Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Cancer Registry; Arkansas Department of Health, Cancer Registry, 4815 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72205. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SCPCS: SCPCS is funded by CDC grant S1135-19/19, and SCPCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). SEARCH: SEARCH is funded by a program grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. SNP_Prostate_Ghent: The study was supported by the National Cancer Plan, financed by the Federal Office of Health and Social Affairs, Belgium. SPAG: Wessex Medical ResearchHope for Guernsey, MUG, HSSD, MSG, Roger Allsopp STHM2: STHM2 was supported by grants from The Strategic Research Programme on Cancer (StratCan), Karolinska Institutet; the Linné Centre for Breast and Prostate Cancer (CRISP, number 70867901), Karolinska Institutet; The Swedish Research Council (number K2010-70X-20430-04-3) and The Swedish Cancer Society (numbers 11-0287 and 11-0624); Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linnérs minne; Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS), number 2012-0073STHM2 acknowledges the Karolinska University Laboratory, Aleris Medilab, Unilabs and the Regional Prostate Cancer Registry for performing analyses and help to retrieve data. Carin Cavalli-Björkman and Britt-Marie Hune for their enthusiastic work as research nurses. Astrid Björklund for skilful data management. We wish to thank the BBMRI.se biobank facility at Karolinska Institutet for biobank services. PCPT & SELECT are funded by Public Health Service grants U10CA37429 and 5UM1CA182883 from the National Cancer Institute. SWOG and SELECT thank the site investigators and staff and, most importantly, the participants who donated their time to this trial. TAMPERE: The Tampere (Finland) study was supported by the Academy of Finland (251074), The Finnish Cancer Organisations, Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Competitive Research Funding of the Tampere University Hospital (X51003). The PSA screening samples were collected by the Finnish part of ERSPC (European Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer). TAMPERE would like to thank Riina Liikanen, Liisa Maeaettaenen and Kirsi Talala for their work on samples and databases. UGANDA: None reported UKGPCS: UKGPCS would also like to thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Action), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. UKGPCS should also like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses, data managers, and consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. UKGPCS would like to thank all urologists and other persons involved in the planning, coordination, and data collection of the study. ULM: The Ulm group received funds from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). WUGS/WUPCS: WUGS would like to thank the following for funding support: The Anthony DeNovi Fund, the Donald C. McGraw Foundation, and the St. Louis Men's Group Against Cancer.
This data set contains whole exome sequences of individuals from 8086 (mostly British Pakistani/British Bangladeshi, mostly self-reported parentally related) individuals from the following studies: 1. 5236 British Pakistani/British Bangladeshi adults from East London Genes & Health, now known as Genes & Health 2. 2624 British South Asian mothers from Born in Bradford (mostly Pakistani) 3. 1061 British South Asian adults from Birmingham (mostly Pakistani) This dataset contains all the exome sequence data available for this study on 2022-04-26
Objectives We are sharing a database of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) scans of normal children, which can serve as a reference standard to quantify regional respiratory abnormalities in young patients with various respiratory conditions and facilitate treatment planning and response assessment. The database can also be useful to advance future AI-based research on image-based object segmentation and analysis. Background In pediatric patients with respiratory abnormalities, it is important to understand the alterations in regional dynamics of the lungs and other thoracoabdominal components, which in turn requires a quantitative understanding of what is considered as normal in healthy children. Currently, such a normative database of regional respiratory structure and function in healthy children does not exist. Participants 200 normal children (ages 6-18 years) participated in our research study related to this dataset. DesignThe shared open-source normative database is from our ongoing virtual growing child (VGC) project, which includes 4D dMRI images representing one breathing cycle for each normal child and also segmentations of 10 objects at end expiration (EE) and end inspiration (EI) phases of the respiratory cycle in the 4D image. The lung volumes at EE and EI as well as the excursion volumes of chest wall and diaphragm from EE to EI, left and right sides separately, are also reported. The database has thus 4,000 3D segmentations from 200 normal children in total. The database is unique and provides dMRI images, object segmentations, and quantitative regional respiratory measurement parameters of volumes for normal children. All dMRI scans are acquired from normal children during free-breathing. The dMRI acquisition protocol was as follows: 3T MRI scanner (Verio, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), true-FISP bright-blood sequence, TR=3.82 ms, TE=1.91 ms, voxel size ~1×1×6 mm3, 320×320 matrix, bandwidth 258 Hz, and flip angle 76o. With recent advances, for each sagittal location across the thorax and abdomen, we acquired 40 2D slices over several tidal breathing cycles at ~480 ms/slice. On average, 35 sagittal locations are imaged, yielding a total of ~1400 2D MRI slices, with a resulting total scan time of 11-13 minutes for any particular study participant.The collected dMRI scan data then went through the procedure of 4D image construction, image processing, object segmentation, and volumetric measurements from segmentations. 4D image construction: For the acquired dMRI scans, we utilized an automated 4D image construction approach to form one 4D image over one breathing cycle (consisting of typically 5-8 respiratory phases) from each acquired dMRI scan to represent the whole dynamic thoraco-abdominal body region. The algorithm selects 175-280 slices (35 sagittal locations × 5-8 respiratory phases) from the 1400 acquired slices in an optimal manner using an optical flux method. Image processing: Intensity standardization is performed on every time point/3D volume of the 4D image so that image values have the same tissue-specific meaning across all subjects. Object segmentation: For each subject, there are 10 objects segmented at both EE and EI time points in this database. They include the thoracoabdominal skin outer boundary, left and right lungs, liver, spleen, left and right kidneys, diaphragm, and left and right hemi-diaphragms. All dMRI scans utilize large field of view images, which include the full thorax and abdomen to the inferior aspect of the kidneys in the sagittal plane. We used a pretrained U-Net based deep learning network to first segment all objects, and then all auto-segmentation results were visually checked and manually refined as needed, under the supervision of a radiologist with over 25 years of expertise in MRI and thoracoabdominal radiology. Manual segmentations have been performed for all objects in all datasets. Volumetric measurements based on object segmentations for lung volumes (left and right separately) at EE and EI, as well as for chest wall and diaphragm excursion volumes (left and right separately) are reported. ConclusionsThe provided database is unique and provides dMRI images, object segmentations, and quantitative regional respiratory measurement parameters of volumes for normal children. The database has 4,000 3D segmentations from 200 normal children, which to our knowledge is the largest and only such dMRI dataset to date. All images and object segmentations are saved in DICOM. All DICOM files (176,574 in total) have been anonymized, and PHI has been removed. The database can be used as a reference standard to quantify regional respiratory abnormalities in young patients with various respiratory conditions and facilitate treatment planning and response assessment. The large amount of object segmentations can potentially benefit AI-based research on image-based object segmentation and analysis.
