17416 results for "the best way to get coins in fc 26 Navštivte Buyfc26coins.com Společnost známá transparentními transakcemi..CQ2q"

in 14.34 milliseconds.

• Characterization of individual foci of multicentric/multifocal breast cancer using targeted next generation sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the ?quadrants? of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients? survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001000624

• Sporadic ALS Australia Systems Genomics Consortium (SALSA-SGC)

  In 2016 we established the Sporadic ALS Australia Systems Genomics Consortium (SALSA-SGC) funded by the Ice Bucket Challenge Grant administered by the Motor Neurone Disease Research Institute of Australia. The goals of the SALSA-SGC are to collect biological samples from clinics across Australia with matched in depth clinical and self-report phenotypes and to generate multiple levels of genetic and genomic data. In this first data generation exercise of the SALSA-SGC the majority of the samples were collected prior to the formal establishment of SALSA-SGC from clinics across Australia.Briefly, the cohort includes the University of Sydney’s Australian Motor Neuron Disease DNA Bank (MND Bank) cohort recruited April 2000 to June 2011), with study protocol approved by the Sydney South West Area Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Cases were recruited from around Australia via state-based MND associations with diagnosis verified by a neurologist. The remainder of the cases were recruited from clinics across Australia between 2015 and 2017 under HREC approvals from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Macquarie University Multidisciplinary Motor Neurone Disease Clinic,  Calvary Health Care Bethlehem in Melbourne , Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth, and from 2016 under HREC approvals at each site for the sporadic ALS Australia Systems Genomics Consortium (SALSA-SGC). The ALS cases were diagnosed with definite or probable ALS according to the revised El Escorial criteria. Some controls were recruited as either partners or friends of patients, healthy individuals free of neuromuscular diseases. We are providing GWAS and MWAS data in this dataset. Individual level GWAS data were generated using Illumina Infinium CoreExome-24 version 1.1 chips for N= 846 cases and N=665 controls. Individual MWAS data was generated using the Illumina Human methylation 450K array for N=782 cases and N=613 controls. There 1315 individuals where GWAS and MWAS data has been generated and is available. Further information on these data sets can be found: Paper 1: Restuadi, R, Garton, FC, Benyamin, B, Lin, T, et al. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Genetic Correlation with Cognitive Performance, educational attainment and schizophrenia: evidence from polygenic risk score analysis. (submitted) Paper 2: Nabais, MF, Lin, T, Benyamin, B et al. Significant out-of-sample classification from methylation profile scoring for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 2020. NPJ genomic medicine. 5(10). Files provided in this submission include: GWAS: This folder contains QCed genotype for the Australian ALS case-control cohort. Contains PLINK files for genotyping data (not imputed yet). The individuals selected here have: good consistency on phenotype data ethics approval registered as part of sporadic ALS studies unrelated by GRM cut-off 0.05 No ancestry QC yet MWAS: This folder contains the IDAT and post-QC normalized DNAm (beta) for the Australian ALS case-control cohort. 2019_AUS_ALS_PCTG_DNAm.tar.gz - IDATS for 1315 individuals analyzed in the MWAS study normalized_beta_values - Binary files (created with the OSCA software) containing information on the individuals, probes and the DNAm (beta) values obtained after QC phenotype_file - contains all the covariates analysed in the MWAS including: case-control status, coded 0 = Control and 1 = ALS, predicted age, predicted cell-type proportions, predicted smoking scores, slide and chip position and sex Important Notes: The DNAm data were normalized together with samples that were not part of this ALS case/control study and thus, the normalization procedure may not be 100% reproducible using only the IDAT files uploaded here. Summary data has been made publicly available and can be accessed directly: Data collection and sample processing were performed at several clinics across Australia. Genotyping and DNA methylation arrays were performed by the Human Studies Unit, at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience (University of Queensland). Quality control of the genotypic, phenotypic and DNA methylation data was done by the Program of Complex Traits Genomics, at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience (University of Queensland).

  Study phs002068

• Sequencing data for oesophageal and related samples - OACs release 2 (RNA)

  Dataset EGAD00001003839

• Exome reads and RNA-seq

  Exome sequencing for 26 patients with matched blood RNA-seq for 41 patients

  Dataset EGAD00001002722

• Prostate cancer datasets WES

  WES: 48 samples (5 blood samples from 6 patient data): 22 Tumour cores and 26 normal/benign cores (HiSeq)

  Dataset EGAD00001004467

• RNAseq

  RNAseq was performed on CDX, CDX-derived cell line and LNCaP cell line, with triplicates.

  Dataset EGAD00001006008

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Trauma Epidemiologic Registry (Trauma Epistry) (ROC-Trauma Epistry-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.Available Data: This dataset only includes traumatic injury participants. For ROC cardiac arrest Epistry data please see: ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2 and ROC-Cardiac Epistry 3.Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital traumatic injury responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims included: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of people that experience traumatic injury; to more fully establish the burden of traumatic injury; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes.Background: Traumatic injury is a major public health problem generating substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic burden on society. The majority of seriously injured persons are initially evaluated and cared for by prehospital providers, however the effect of EMS systems, EMS clinical care, and EMS interventions on trauma patient outcomes is largely unknown. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region.The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Previous trauma registries have generally focused primarily on hospitalized patients with limited prehospital information. Registries may also exclude trauma cases at far ends of the spectrum, such as those who die in the field or in a non-trauma center and/or patients that are treated and released. These limitations do not allow for detailed, outcome-based assessments of EMS system factors necessary to define prehospital resuscitation best practices. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital traumatic injuries matched to hospital-based outcomes in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 13,830 traumatic events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia.Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital traumatic injuries in the ROC regions. Cases were identified through review of emergency response system records including dispatch centers, EMS ground agencies, and air medical services. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads (Newgard, et al., 2008, PMID: 18482792).

  Study phs003809

• What is metadata?

  What is metadata? Data represents units of information and metadata can be seen, simply put, as data about other data. For example, in a simple experiment in which a patient genome was sequenced, there are multiple and diverse fields of metadata: from the biological sex of the patient to the sequencing platform used. Another way to understand metadata, following our genomic experiment example, is going through the different layers of (meta)data: One of the basic units of information (data) would be the sequence of nucleotides (e.g. GCTGG and GCCGG). This DNA sequence can be contextualised within a chromosome by providing its locus (e.g. β-globin gene). This data, the locus, is about other data, the sequence of nucleotides, which would render it metadata. We can go one step further, and provide more context, by giving the associated phenotype of each of these sequences: GCTGG corresponds to a healthy individual, while GCCGG corresponds to a person with β-thalassaemia. Once again, this data is contextualising the data we have provided up to this point, which makes it metadata. With this simple example, what we are doing is adding layers of data that describe the ones below. Had we given the sequences alone, little would be possible from the researchers' point of view. But, now that the data has its accompanying metadata, a researcher could compare both sequences and their phenotypes to infer a possible cause of the disorder. Each layer of information broadens the possible applications of the data. Now that we know what metadata is, it is time to emphasise the importance of submitting good quality metadata. The quality of the metadata will determine whether the data is usable, discoverable, and interpretable by researchers and clinicians. One example that highlights the importance of good quality metadata is the description of biological sex of a patient: while the terms "female," "girl," or "woman" all represent the same concept, they are not harmonised. These different representations of a concept can create confusion and errors in data analysis. By applying standard definitions and terminologies to biological sex metadata, we can avoid misunderstandings and facilitate the integration of different datasets.  In order to comply with the FAIR principles and, more specifically, to allow for the (meta)data to be interoperable (i.e. used universally and unambiguously), we need to place some standards onto the (meta)data EGA  archives. These can be as simple as asserting that the given patient's biological sex is one of the correct terms (e.g. female or male); or as complex as multiple layers and combinations of validation steps with existing records. You can find further details on how EGA manages these standards on our metadata model page.

  Documentation submission/metadata/what-is-metadata

• alopecia areata

  exome sequencing files from 25 alopecia areata samples from spain.

  Dataset EGAD00001006370

• OpACIN-neo – A Multicenter Phase 2 Study to identify the Optimal neo-Adjuvant Combination scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab – Whole exome sequencing

  The outcome of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma is poor. Neoadjuvant treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab at the standard dosing schedule induced pathological responses in a high proportion of patients in two small independent early-phase trials. However, toxicity of the standard ipilimumab plus nivolumab dosing schedule was high, preventing its broader clinical use. The aim of the OpACIN-neo study (NCT02977052) to identify a dosing schedule of ipilimumab plus nivolumab that is less toxic but equally effective. 86 patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomised to one of three dosing schedules: arm A, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks; arm B, two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks; or arm C, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks directly followed by two cycles of nivolumab 3mg/kg once every 2 weeks. Within the first 12 weeks, grade 3–4 immune-related adverse events were observed in 12 (40%) of 30 patients in group A, six (20%) of 30 in group B, and 13 (50%) of 26 in group C. Pathological responses occurred in 24 (80%) patients in group A, 23 (77%) in group B, and 17 (65%) in group C. The 2-year estimated relapse-free survival was 84% for all patients, 97% for patients achieving a pathologic response and 36% for nonresponders (p<0.001). High tumor mutational burden (TMB) and high interferon-gamma-related gene expression signature score (IFN-γ score) were associated with pathologic response and low risk of relapse; pathologic response rate (pRR) was 100% in patients with high IFN-γ score/high TMB, patients with high IFN-γ score/low TMB or low IFN-γ score/high TMB had pRRs of 91% and 88%; while patients with low IFN-γ score/low TMB had a pRR of only 39%. These data demonstrate long-term benefit in patients with a pathologic response and show the predictive potential of TMB and IFN-γ score.

  Study EGAS00001004832