However, these serum biomarkers have limited usefulness due to their low sensitivity and specificity. In clinical practice, serum markers such as carbohydrate antigen (CA) 15-3, BR 27.29, mucin-like cancer-associated antigen, CA549, and carcinoembryonic antigen are the most common prognostic factors for monitoring patients and predicting their risk of relapse. Thus, estimating relapse and monitoring metastases could contribute to a better outcome and improve quality of life for breast cancer patients. Although radical surgery, radiotherapy, and drug therapy have significantly reduced the risk of relapse and improved overall survival of breast cancer patients, a certain percentage of patients still develop early tumor recurrent or progression. However, further studies are needed to confirm our results.īreast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death among women in the worldwide. Our meta-analysis indicated that cfDNA was associated with poor PFS and OS, thus it may help to predict outcomes of patients with breast cancer. The results of subgroup analyses also revealed that cfDNA was a good predictor of prognosis in breast cancer patients. cfDNA was shown to be significantly associated with PFS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.51–2.72, P <. Results:Ī total of 11 publications involving 1467 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were extracted to assess the prognostic significance of cfDNA. The end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We performed systematic searches in electronic databases to identify studies that evaluated the prognostic value of cfDNA in breast cancer patients. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the prognostic role of cfDNA in breast cancer patients. However, its prognostic value in patients with breast cancer is not well established still now. Ĭirculating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has been reported to predict outcomes in patients with various types of cancer. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website ( This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. JY, LC, and XM contributed equally to this work. 37, Guo Xue Alley, Chengdu 610041, PR China (e-mail: ).Ībbreviations: CA = carbohydrate antigen, cfDNA = cell-free DNA, CIs = confidence intervals, HR = hazard ratio, HRs = hazard ratios, LOH = loss of heterozygosity, NOS = Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, OS = overall survival, PFS = progression-free survival, TNM stage = tumor-node-metastasis stage. Thank you for any input, it's driving me nuts seeing this error and I don't quite understand why it's happening.AState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, ChengduīWest China School of Stomatology Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.Ĭorrespondence: Xuelei Ma, West China Hospital, No. Assuming that the culprit host is in that network, how likely would it be that the other hosts are owned as well? Let's say the oob network traverses several routers into a much larger network which is layer 3 isolated in a vrf. How can I identify the location of the spoofed traffic, if it is indeed spoofed? Would a SPAN session w/ Wireshark help to determine where it is coming from?Ģ. My first thought is there is some spoofing going on, or one of the devices on that interface is owned. I can ping 10.2.3.4 from the mgmt interface and I have verified that it is indeed on the correct vlan, so I don't believe the traffic is coming from it (also why would it be trying to ping itself?). The oob interface has no ARP entry for the 10.2.3.4 host and I can't ping the culprit host sourced from it, so it appears that it isn't actually there or coming from the oob interface. Now I understand uRPF and how it functions - if there isn't a path back to the destination network from that interface, it considers it not legitimate and drops it. "Deny ICMP reverse path check from 10.2.3.4 to 10.2.3.4 on interface oob" I will call the culprit host 10.2.3.4 and the interface it lives on the mgmt interface (10.2.3.0/24), while the reverse path notices are coming in on the oob interface (172.16.0.0/24). Since about two weeks ago, we have been receiving reverse path notifications on our ASA for an ip address that doesn't exist on that interface.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |