Institution
Mayo Clinic
Healthcare•Rochester, Minnesota, United States•
About: Mayo Clinic is a healthcare organization based out in Rochester, Minnesota, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 63387 authors who have published 169578 publications receiving 8114006 citations.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Cancer, Breast cancer, Heart failure
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Boston Children's Hospital1, University of Washington2, Emory University3, GeneDx4, National Institutes of Health5, University of Utah6, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute7, Salisbury University8, University of California, San Francisco9, Uppsala University10, University of British Columbia11, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine12, Drexel University13, University of Groningen14, University of Pennsylvania15, University of California, Santa Cruz16, Brigham and Women's Hospital17, The Centre for Applied Genomics18, Research Triangle Park19, Mayo Clinic20, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven21, University of Chicago22, American College of Medical Genetics23
TL;DR: Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is increasingly utilized for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA).
Abstract: Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is increasingly utilized for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). Performing CMA and G-banded karyotyping on every patient substantially increases the total cost of genetic testing. The International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium held two international workshops and conducted a literature review of 33 studies, including 21,698 patients tested by CMA. We provide an evidence-based summary of clinical cytogenetic testing comparing CMA to G-banded karyotyping with respect to technical advantages and limitations, diagnostic yield for various types of chromosomal aberrations, and issues that affect test interpretation. CMA offers a much higher diagnostic yield (15%–20%) for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained DD/ID, ASD, or MCA than a G-banded karyotype (~3%, excluding Down syndrome and other recognizable chromosomal syndromes), primarily because of its higher sensitivity for submicroscopic deletions and duplications. Truly balanced rearrangements and low-level mosaicism are generally not detectable by arrays, but these are relatively infrequent causes of abnormal phenotypes in this population (<1%). Available evidence strongly supports the use of CMA in place of G-banded karyotyping as the first-tier cytogenetic diagnostic test for patients with DD/ID, ASD, or MCA. G-banded karyotype analysis should be reserved for patients with obvious chromosomal syndromes (e.g., Down syndrome), a family history of chromosomal rearrangement, or a history of multiple miscarriages.
2,294 citations
••
University of Cambridge1, National Institutes of Health2, University of Southern California3, International Agency for Research on Cancer4, Academia Sinica5, Princess Anne Hospital6, St Mary's Hospital7, University of London8, The Breast Cancer Research Foundation9, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute10, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute11, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre12, University of Copenhagen13, Curie Institute14, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine15, University of Helsinki16, Seoul National University17, University of Ulsan18, Harvard University19, Karolinska Institutet20, Agency for Science, Technology and Research21, Hannover Medical School22, Leiden University23, Erasmus University Rotterdam24, University of Minnesota25, University of Sheffield26, Mayo Clinic27, VU University Amsterdam28, Carlos III Health Institute29, University of Melbourne30, University of Otago31, Cancer Council New South Wales32, Cancer Council Victoria33, Bosch34, University of Tübingen35, German Cancer Research Center36, University of Eastern Finland37
TL;DR: To identify further susceptibility alleles, a two-stage genome-wide association study in 4,398 breast cancer cases and 4,316 controls was conducted, followed by a third stage in which 30 single nucleotide polymorphisms were tested for confirmation.
Abstract: Breast cancer exhibits familial aggregation, consistent with variation in genetic susceptibility to the disease. Known susceptibility genes account for less than 25% of the familial risk of breast cancer, and the residual genetic variance is likely to be due to variants conferring more moderate risks. To identify further susceptibility alleles, we conducted a two-stage genome-wide association study in 4,398 breast cancer cases and 4,316 controls, followed by a third stage in which 30 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were tested for confirmation in 21,860 cases and 22,578 controls from 22 studies. We used 227,876 SNPs that were estimated to correlate with 77% of known common SNPs in Europeans at r2.0.5. SNPs in five novel independent loci exhibited strong and consistent evidence of association with breast cancer (P,1027). Four of these contain plausible causative genes (FGFR2, TNRC9, MAP3K1 and LSP1). At the second stage, 1,792 SNPs were significant at the P,0.05 level compared with an estimated 1,343 that would be expected by chance, indicating that many additional common susceptibility alleles may be identifiable by this approach.
2,288 citations
••
TL;DR: The incidence and size of the patent foramen ovale were studied in 965 autopsy specimens of human hearts, which were from subjects who were evenly distributed by sex and age.
2,262 citations
••
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, Harvard University2, Hochschule Hannover3, Medical University of Vienna4, Roswell Park Cancer Institute5, McGill University6, University of Michigan7, Washington University in St. Louis8, Huntsman Cancer Institute9, University Hospital Heidelberg10, University of Siena11, Yale Cancer Center12, University of California, Los Angeles13, Mayo Clinic14, Herlev Hospital15, Aix-Marseille University16, Technische Universität München17, Bristol-Myers Squibb18, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust19
TL;DR: Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilicumab and a BRAF inhibitor.
Abstract: Summary Background Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAF V 600 mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01721746. Findings Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5–40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5–23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3–4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three [1%] of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two [1%] each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 [14%] of 102), thrombocytopenia (six [6%]), and anaemia (five [5%]). We noted grade 3–4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
2,260 citations
••
Harvard University1, University of Michigan2, PinnacleHealth System3, St. Luke's Hospital4, Spectrum Health5, Mount Sinai Hospital6, Scripps Research Institute7, University of Kansas8, Yale University9, Johns Hopkins University10, Alfred Hospital11, McGill University12, Saint Francis University13, University of Pittsburgh14, Mayo Clinic15, Medtronic plc16, Paradigm17
TL;DR: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self‐expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months.
Abstract: Background Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased risk for death from surgery; less is know...
2,240 citations
Authors
Showing all 64325 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Eugene Braunwald | 230 | 1711 | 264576 |
Peter Libby | 211 | 932 | 182724 |
Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
Rob Knight | 201 | 1061 | 253207 |
Robert M. Califf | 196 | 1561 | 167961 |
Eric J. Topol | 193 | 1373 | 151025 |
Dennis W. Dickson | 191 | 1243 | 148488 |
Gordon B. Mills | 187 | 1273 | 186451 |
Julie E. Buring | 186 | 950 | 132967 |
Patrick W. Serruys | 186 | 2427 | 173210 |
Cornelia M. van Duijn | 183 | 1030 | 146009 |
Paul G. Richardson | 183 | 1533 | 155912 |
John C. Morris | 183 | 1441 | 168413 |
Valentin Fuster | 179 | 1462 | 185164 |
Ronald C. Petersen | 178 | 1091 | 153067 |