15 research outputs found
μ μ μ± μ μ¦νκ΅°μ μμμ νΉμ§μ κ°λ νκ΅μΈ μ λ°©μ νμμμ λ€μ€ μ μ μ ν¨λ κ²μ¬λ₯Ό ν΅ν μ μ μ± μ μ μ μ λ³μ΄ νμΈ
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ(λ°μ¬)--μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ :μκ³Όλν μνκ³Ό,2019. 8. λ
Έλμ.Background: Hereditary cancer syndrome means that inherited genetic mutations can increase a person's risk of developing cancer. We assessed the frequency of germline mutations using an NGS-based multiple-gene panel containing 64-cancer predisposing genes in Korean breast cancer patients with clinical features of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC).
Materials and Methods: Targeted sequencing using the multi-gene panel was performed to identify germline mutations in 496 breast cancer patients with clinical features of HBOC. Of 496 patients, 95 patients (19.2%) were found to have 48 deleterious germline mutations in 16 cancer susceptibility genes.
Results: The deleterious mutations were found in 39 of 250 patients (15.6%) who had breast cancer and another primary cancer, 38 of 169 patients (22.5%) who had a family history of breast cancer ( 2 relatives), 16 of 57 patients (28.1%) who had bilateral breast cancer, and 29 of 84 patients (34.5%) who were diagnosed with breast cancer at younger than 40 years of age. Of the 95 patients with deleterious mutations, 60 patients (63.2%) had BRCA1/2mutations and 38 patients (40.0%) had non-BRCA1/2mutations. We detected 2 novel deleterious mutations that were not previously reported: NM_000059.3:c.3096_3111del (p.Lys1032Asnfs*6) in BRCA2 and NM_000249.3:c.849T>A (p.Tyr283*) in MLH1.
Conclusions: Using an NGS-based multi-gene panel test, we found that 19.2% of patients with clinical features of HBOC had germline cancer predisposing mutations. Approximately two-thirds of included patients had BRCA1/2mutationsandone-thirdhadnon-BRCA1/2mutations.NGS-based multiple-gene panel testing improved the detection rates of deleterious mutations and provided a cost-effective cancer risk assessment.μ°κ΅¬λͺ©μ : μ μ μ± μ μ¦νκ΅°μ μμμΈν¬μ λ³μ μΈ λμ°λ³μ΄λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄ κ°μΈμ νΉμ μ λ°μμ μνλκ° λμμ§λ κ²μ μλ―Ένλ€. νμ¬ μ λ°©μμμμ BRCA1/2 μ μ μ λμ°λ³μ΄κ° κ°μ₯ λ§μ΄ μλ €μ§ μ μ μ± μ μ μ μ μ€ νλμ΄λ€. μ°λ¦¬λ 64κ°μ μ μ μ± μ μ μ μλ₯Ό ν¬ν¨ν λ€μ€ μ μ μ ν¨λμ μ°¨μΈλ μΌκΈ° μμ΄ λΆμ λ°©μμ ν΅ν΄ κ°λ°νμλ€. μ΄ λ€μ€ μ μ μ ν¨λ κ²μ¬λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄ μμμ μΌλ‘ μ μ μ± μ μ¦νκ΅°μ νΉμ§μ κ°μ§κ³ μλ νκ΅μΈ μ λ°©μ νμλ₯Ό λμμΌλ‘ νμ¬ μ μ μ± μκ³Ό κ΄λ ¨λ μ μ μμ λμ°λ³μ΄ λΉλλ₯Ό λΆμνμ¬, λ€μ€ μ μ μ ν¨λμ μ μ©μ±μ μμ λ³΄κ³ μ νλ€.
λμ λ° λ°©λ²: 64κ°μ μ μ μ± μκ³Ό κ΄λ ¨λ μ μ μ λͺ©λ‘μ λ¬Έν κ²μμ ν΅ν΄ μ ν ν μ°¨μΈλ μΌκΈ° μμ΄ λΆμ λ°©μμ κΈ°λ°μΌλ‘ ν λ€μ€ μ μ μ ν¨λμ κ°λ°νμλ€. 2002λ
λΆν° 2017λ
κΉμ§ μμΈλνκ΅λ³μκ³Ό κ΅λ¦½μμΌν°μμ μ§λ¨λ μ λ°©μ νμ μ€ μμμ μΈ μ μ μ± μ μ¦νκ΅°μ νΉμ§μ κ°μ§ 496λͺ
μ νμλ₯Ό λμμΌλ‘ μ μ μ λΆμμ μννμ¬ μμμΈν¬ λμ°λ³μ΄ μ¬λΆλ₯Ό νμΈνμλ€. μμμ μΈ μ μ μ± μ μ¦νκ΅°μ 1) μ λ°©μ μ΄μΈ λ€λ₯Έ μλ°μ± μμ΄ λ°μν κ²½μ°, 2) 2λͺ
μ΄μμ μ λ°©μ κ°μ‘±λ ₯μ΄ μλ κ²½μ°, 3) μμΈ‘μ± μ λ°©μμ΄ λ°μνλ κ²½μ°, 4) 40μΈ μ΄νμμ μ λ°©μμ΄ λ°μν κ²½μ° μ€ νλ μ΄μ ν¬ν¨λλ κ²½μ°λ‘ μ μνμλ€.
κ²°κ³Ό: μ΄ 496λͺ
μ νμ μ€ 95λͺ
(19.2%)μ νμμμ 48κ°μ μμ λ°μ κ°λ₯μ±μ΄ λ§€μ° λμ μ μ μ λμ°λ³μ΄(deleterious mutation)κ° λ°κ²¬λμλ€. μ λ°©μκ³Ό λλ€λ₯Έ μλ°μ±μμ΄ λ°μν 250λͺ
μ€ 39λͺ
(15.6%), 2λͺ
μ΄μμ μ λ°©μ κ°μ‘±λ ₯μ΄ μλ 169λͺ
μ€ 38λͺ
(22.5%), μμΈ‘μ± μ λ°©μμ΄ μ§λ¨λ 57λͺ
μ€ 16λͺ
(28.1%), 40μΈ μ΄νμμ μ λ°©μμ΄ μ§λ¨λ 84λͺ
μ€ 29λͺ
(34.5%)μμ deleterious mutationμ΄ λ°κ²¬λμλ€. Deleterious mutationμ΄ λ°κ²¬λ 95λͺ
μ€ 60λͺ
(63.2%)λ BRCA1/2 μ μ μ λμ°λ³μ΄κ° μμλ€. 38λͺ
(40.0%)μ BRCA1/2 μ μ μ μ΄μΈμ μ μ μ± μ μ μ μμ λμ°λ³μ΄κ° μλ κ²μΌλ‘ λνλ¬μΌλ©° CDH1 (8.4%), RAD51 (7.4%), SPINK1 (6.3%), TP53 (5.3%), NBN (3.2%), CHEK2 (2.1%), FANCA (2.1%), MLH1 (2.1%), BRIP1 (1.1%), MRE11A (1.1%), MSH2 (1.1%), MUTYH (1.1%)λ±μ μ μ μ λμ°λ³μ΄κ° κ΄μ°°λμλ€. 3λͺ
μμλ BRCA1/2 μ μ μ λ³μ΄μ BRCA1/2 μ΄μΈμ μ μ μ λ³μ΄κ° λμμ μμλ€. μ΄ μΈμ 67λͺ
(13.5%)μ νμμμ deleterious mutationμ κ°λ₯μ±μ΄ μμ κ²μΌλ‘ 보μ΄λ Variant of Unknown Significance(VUS)κ° λ°κ²¬λμλ€. λν μ΄λ² μ°κ΅¬λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄ νμ¬κΉμ§ λ³΄κ³ λμ§ μμ μλ‘μ΄ 2κ°μ deleterious mutationμ λ°κ²¬νμμΌλ©°, BRCA2 μ μ μμμ λ°μν NM_000059.3:c.3096_3111del (p.Lys1032Asnfs*6) λ³μ΄, MLH1 μ μ μμμ λ°μν NM_000249.3:c.849T>A (p.Tyr283*) λ³μ΄μ΄λ€.
κ²°λ‘ : μ°¨μΈλ μΌκΈ° μμ΄ λΆμ λ°©μμ μ΄μ©ν λ€μ€ μ μ μ ν¨λ κ²μ¬λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄ μ μ μ± μ μ¦νκ΅°μ μμμ νΉμ§μ 보μ΄λ μ λ°©μ νμμμ μμμΈν¬ λμ°λ³μ΄ μ€ deleterious mutationμ΄ 19.2%μμ μμμ νμΈνμλ€. Deleterious mutation μ€ μ½ 2/3 κ°λμ BRCA1/2 λ³μ΄μμΌλ©° 1/3 κ°λμ BRCA1/2 μ΄μΈμ λ€λ₯Έ μ μ μ λ³μ΄κ° μμλ€. μ΄λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄ λ€μ€ μ μ μ ν¨λ κ²μ¬λ₯Ό μνν κ²½μ° λ¨μΌ μ μ μ κ²μ¬μ λΉν΄ μμμ μΌλ‘ μλ―Έκ° μλ deleterious mutationμ λ³΄λ€ λ§μ΄ ν¨μ¨μ μΌλ‘ μ°ΎμλΌ μ μμμ νμΈνμλ€. μ΄λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄ μ μ μ± μ μ¦νκ΅°μ λ§μΆ€ μ§λ¨ λ° μΉλ£λ₯Ό μννλλ° λμμ΄ λ κ²μΌλ‘ 보μΈλ€.Introduction 1
Materials and Methods - 3
Results 6
Discussion 28
Authors contributions - 40
References 41
κ΅λ¬Έμ΄λ‘ 47Docto
Clinicopathological Characteristics and Factors Affecting Recurrence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Korean Women
Purpose: As breast cancer screening becomes more popular in Korea, incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of breast has increased to more than 10% of all breast cancer diagnosed. We aimed to show the clinicopathological characteristics and factors affecting recurrence of DCIS in Korean women. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 152 DCIS patients who underwent breast conserving surgery in Seoul National University Hospital between January 1995 and December 2005. Results: Mean age at diagnosis was 46.7 years (24 to 66 years). Mean follow up duration of the patients was 73.82 months (0.80 to 168.43 months). Recurrence of disease occurred in 19 (12.5%) patients: 2 in contralateral breast, 15 in ipsilateral breast, and 2 in axilla. One patient showed ipsilateral breast recur after excision of axillary metastasis. Eight (42.11%) of all recurrence was infiltrating ductal carcinoma and one of them showed bone metastasis during follow up. In an multivariate analysis of factors affecting recurrence, younger age at diagnosis and omission of radiotherapy had significant association with recurrence (p=0.005 and p=0.002, respectively). However, tumor size (p=0.862), microinvasion (p=0.988), histologic grade (p=0.157), estrogen receptor status (p=0.401) and resection margin status (p=0.112) were not significantly correlated with recurrence. There was no breast cancer associated mortality. Conclusion: In this study, we found that the younger age at diagnosis and omission of adjuvant radiotherapy are independent predictors of recurrence in Korean DCIS patients.Pinder SE, 2010, BRIT J CANCER, V103, P94, DOI 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605718Bundred NJ, 2010, CLIN CANCER RES, V16, P1605, DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1623Virnig BA, 2010, J NATL CANCER I, V102, P170, DOI 10.1093/jnci/djp482Allegra CJ, 2010, J NATL CANCER I, V102, P161, DOI 10.1093/jnci/djp485Thomas J, 2010, BRIT J CANCER, V102, P285, DOI 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605513Collins LC, 2009, AM J SURG PATHOL, V33, P1802Hughes LL, 2009, J CLIN ONCOL, V27, P5319, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2009.21.8560Shah DN, 2009, BREAST J, V15, P649, DOI 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00838.xGoodwin A, 2009, BREAST, V18, P143, DOI 10.1016/j.breast.2009.04.003Chung YS, 2009, J BREAST CANCER, V12, P106, DOI 10.4048/jbc.2009.12.2.106Dunne C, 2009, J CLIN ONCOL, V27, P1615, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.5182Kuerer HM, 2009, J CLIN ONCOL, V27, P279, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.3103Luini A, 2009, BREAST CANCER RES TR, V113, P397, DOI 10.1007/s10549-008-9929-0von Smitten K, 2008, J SURG ONCOL, V98, P585, DOI 10.1002/jso.21038Ko SS, 2008, J SURG ONCOL, V98, P318, DOI 10.1002/jso.21110Sakorafas GH, 2008, CANCER TREAT REV, V34, P483, DOI 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.03.001Morrow M, 2008, ANN SURG ONCOL, V15, P2641, DOI 10.1245/s10434-008-0083-zIntra M, 2008, ANN SURG, V247, P315, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31815b446bAllred DC, 2008, CLIN CANCER RES, V14, P370, DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1127RHEE J, 2008, BMC CANCER, V8, pNIL19, DOI DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-8-307Moore KH, 2007, ANN SURG ONCOL, V14, P2911, DOI 10.1245/s10434-007-9414-8Sontag L, 2005, J THEOR BIOL, V232, P179, DOI 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.08.002Boland GP, 2003, BRIT J SURG, V90, P426, DOI 10.1002/bjs.4051Vicini FA, 2002, J CLIN ONCOL, V20, P2736, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2002.07.137Neuschatz AC, 2002, CANCER, V94, P1917, DOI 10.1002/cncr.10460Bartelink H, 2001, NEW ENGL J MED, V345, P1378Bijker N, 2001, J CLIN ONCOL, V19, P2263LEE HD, 2001, J KOREAN SURG SOC, V60, P495FRYKBERG ER, 1997, BREAST J, V3, P227
κΈ°μ κ° κ΄κ³νμ±μ μν₯μμΈμ΄ κΈ°μ μ±κ³Όμ λ―ΈμΉλ μν₯μ κ΄ν μ°κ΅¬
μ λ°©μμμ p90 RSKμ μΈμ°ν κ°μμ μ ννμμλ²μ λν μ νμ±
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ (μμ¬)-- μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ : μνκ³Ό μΈκ³Όνμ 곡, 2011.2. λ
Έλμ.Maste
μμ κ±° μ€μ¬ λ Ήμλμκ΅ν΅μ²΄κ³ ꡬμΆλ°©μ(Bicycle oriented green urban transportation systems)
λ
ΈνΈ : λ
Ήμμ±μ₯μ’
ν©μ°κ΅¬μ΄μ 10-02-5
곡곡μμ κ±° ν¨κ³Ό λΆμ λ° λ°μ λ°©μ(Impact analysis on bike-sharing and its improvement plan)
Dynamic Channel Access for Underwater Sensor Networks: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach
We studied the dynamic channel access problem in distributed underwater acoustic sensor netowkrs (UASNs) by using deep reinforcement learning algorithm. First, a multi-agent Markov decision process was applied to formulate the channel allocation problem in UASNs. In an underwater environment, each underwater sensor is considered for the purpose of maximizing the total network data throughput without sending and receiving data or coordinating with other underwater sensors. Then, we propose a deep Q learning-based reinforcement learning algorithm in which each underwater sensor learns not only the channel access behavior of other underwater sensors, but also features such as the channel error probability of the available underwater acoustic channels to maximize total network data throughput. Afterwards, extensive performance evaluation was performed to confirm whether the performance of the proposed algorithm was similar or superior when compared to the performance of the reference algorithms even when implemented in a distributed manner without data exchange between sensors.1. Introduction 1
2. Underwater communication 8
2.1 Acoustic communication 8
2.1.1 Noise 9
2.1.2 Transmission Loss 10
2.1.3 Multipath Propagation 12
2.1.4 Doppler spread 12
2.2 RF & Optical Communication 13
3. Reinforcement Learning 15
3.1 Reinforcement Learning 15
3.2 Q-learning 15
4. Dynamic Channel Access Algorithm 19
4.1 System Model 19
4.2 Problem Formulation 21
4.3 Proposed Algorithm 25
5. Performance Evaluation 27
5.1 Network Environment 27
5.2 Learning Environment 28
5.3 Baseline Schemes 28
5.4 Performance Evaluation 29
6. Conclusion 34
REFERENCES 35Maste
λ Ήμμ±μ₯μ μν μμ κ±° μ€μ¬ κ΅ν΅μ²΄κ³ κ΅¬μΆ λ°©μ(Bicycle oriented transportation systems for green growth)
λ
ΈνΈ : λ―Έλμ¬ννλμ°κ΅¬μ΄μ 09-06-3