| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Campbell, PJ, et al.
(author)
-
Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes
- 2020
-
In: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 578:7793, s. 82-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale1–3. Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter4; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation5,6; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution7; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity8,9; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes8,10–18.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- He, YQ, et al.
(author)
-
A polygenic risk score for nasopharyngeal carcinoma shows potential for risk stratification and personalized screening
- 2022
-
In: Nature communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 13:1, s. 1966-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to identify individuals at risk of diseases, optimizing treatment, and predicting survival outcomes. Here, we construct and validate a genome-wide association study (GWAS) derived PRS for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), using a multi-center study of six populations (6 059 NPC cases and 7 582 controls), and evaluate its utility in a nested case-control study. We show that the PRS enables effective identification of NPC high-risk individuals (AUC = 0.65) and improves the risk prediction with the PRS incremental deciles in each population (Ptrend ranging from 2.79 × 10−7 to 4.79 × 10−44). By incorporating the PRS into EBV-serology-based NPC screening, the test’s positive predictive value (PPV) is increased from an average of 4.84% to 8.38% and 11.91% in the top 10% and 5% PRS, respectively. In summary, the GWAS-derived PRS, together with the EBV test, significantly improves NPC risk stratification and informs personalized screening.
|
|
| 21. |
- Khatri, C, et al.
(author)
-
Outcomes after perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with proximal femoral fractures: an international cohort study
- 2021
-
In: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 11:11, s. e050830-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Studies have demonstrated high rates of mortality in people with proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, but there is limited published data on the factors that influence mortality for clinicians to make informed treatment decisions. This study aims to report the 30-day mortality associated with perioperative infection of patients undergoing surgery for proximal femoral fractures and to examine the factors that influence mortality in a multivariate analysis.SettingProspective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study.ParticipantsPatients undergoing any operation for a proximal femoral fracture from 1 February to 30 April 2020 and with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (either 7 days prior or 30-day postoperative).Primary outcome30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality.ResultsThis study reports included 1063 patients from 174 hospitals in 19 countries. Overall 30-day mortality was 29.4% (313/1063). In an adjusted model, 30-day mortality was associated with male gender (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.13, p<0.001), age >80 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.31, p=0.013), preoperative diagnosis of dementia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.16, p=0.005), kidney disease (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55, p=0.005) and congestive heart failure (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48, p=0.025). Mortality at 30 days was lower in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 (0.42 to 0.85), p=0.004). There was no difference in mortality in patients with an increase to delay in surgery (p=0.220) or type of anaesthetic given (p=0.787).ConclusionsPatients undergoing surgery for a proximal femoral fracture with a perioperative infection of SARS-CoV-2 have a high rate of mortality. This study would support the need for providing these patients with individualised medical and anaesthetic care, including medical optimisation before theatre. Careful preoperative counselling is needed for those with a proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, especially those in the highest risk groups.Trial registration numberNCT04323644
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
- Zhu, RJ, et al.
(author)
-
Mesenchymal stem cell treatment improves outcome of COVID-19 patients via multiple immunomodulatory mechanisms
- 2021
-
In: Cell research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1748-7838 .- 1001-0602. ; 31:12, s. 1244-1262
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The infusion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) potentially improves clinical symptoms, but the underlying mechanism remains unclear. We conducted a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled (29 patients/group) phase II clinical trial to validate previous findings and explore the potential mechanisms. Patients treated with umbilical cord-derived MSCs exhibited a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.0198) and less time required for symptoms remission (P = 0.0194) than those who received placebo. Based on chest images, both severe and critical patients treated with MSCs showed improvement by day 7 (P = 0.0099) and day 21 (P = 0.0084). MSC-treated patients had fewer adverse events. MSC infusion reduced the levels of C-reactive protein, proinflammatory cytokines, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) and promoted the maintenance of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. To explore how MSCs modulate the immune system, we employed single-cell RNA sequencing analysis on peripheral blood. Our analysis identified a novel subpopulation of VNN2+ hematopoietic stem/progenitor-like (HSPC-like) cells expressing CSF3R and PTPRE that were mobilized following MSC infusion. Genes encoding chemotaxis factors — CX3CR1 and L-selectin — were upregulated in various immune cells. MSC treatment also regulated B cell subsets and increased the expression of costimulatory CD28 in T cells in vivo and in vitro. In addition, an in vivo mouse study confirmed that MSCs suppressed NET release and reduced venous thrombosis by upregulating kindlin-3 signaling. Together, our results underscore the role of MSCs in improving COVID-19 patient outcomes via maintenance of immune homeostasis.
|
|
| 25. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
- Chen, F, et al.
(author)
-
Interval cancers in nasopharyngeal carcinoma screening: comparing two screening intervals after a negative initial screening result
- 2012
-
In: Journal of medical screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 1475-5793 .- 0969-1413. ; 19:4, s. 195-200
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To examine the optimal screening interval among the individuals who received a negative Epstein-Barr virus immunoglobulin A antibodies against viral capsid antigen (VCA-IgA) serum test result and who comprised the majority of the population screened for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods Screening was performed in Sihui, Guangdong, China, offering a repeated screening for participants with an initial negative test either after 4-5 years in one centre (short interval centre), or 9-10 years in another (long interval centre). The characteristics and incidence rates (IRs) of interval NPCs (defined as cases diagnosed outside the screening protocol while within the screening interval) were compared between these two centres. Standard incidence ratios (SIRs) were also calculated using the general Sihui population as the reference. Results Seven interval NPCs were detected in the short interval centre (IR: 17.8/10 5 person-years) and 20 in the long interval centre (IR: 20.8/10 5 person-years during the first four years and 43.5/10 5 person-years during the remaining years). The SIR in the short interval centre was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.89); SIR in the long interval centre was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.17-1.02) during the first four years and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.49-1.51) during the remaining years. No aggressive interval NPC was observed in the short interval centre; four were identified in the long interval centre. Conclusions The incidence of NPC, especially aggressive NPC, was low during the first few years after a negative screening; the incidence increased to the general population level afterwards. A screening interval of 4-5 years may therefore be more suitable than 9–10 years after a negative VCA-IgA test in NPC screening.
|
|
| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
|
|
| 33. |
|
|
| 34. |
|
|
| 35. |
|
|
| 36. |
|
|
| 37. |
|
|
| 38. |
|
|
| 39. |
|
|
| 40. |
|
|
| 41. |
|
|
| 42. |
|
|
| 43. |
|
|
| 44. |
|
|
| 45. |
|
|
| 46. |
|
|
| 47. |
|
|
| 48. |
|
|
| 49. |
|
|
| 50. |
|
|
