ArticleCancers2022
DNA Damage Repair Classifier Defines Distinct Groups in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- R‑loops in hepatocellular carcinoma: Bridging genomic instability and therapeutic opportunity (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- DNA damage repair-related gene signature for identifying the immune status and predicting the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- BCL11B expression in hepatocellular carcinoma relates to chemosensitivity and clinical prognosis.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- WHSC1 is involved in DNA damage, cellular senescence and immune response in hepatocellular carcinoma progression.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA repair pathways have been associated with variability in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) clinical outcomes, but the mechanism through which DNA repair varies as a function of liver regeneration and other HCC characteristics is poorly understood. We curated a panel of 199 genes representing 15 DNA repair pathways to identify DNA repair expression classes and evaluate their associations with liver features and clinicopathologic variables in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) HCC study. We identified two groups in HCC, defined by low or high expression across all DNA repair pathways. The low-repair group had lower grade and retained the expression of classical liver markers, whereas the high-repair group had more clinically aggressive features, increased p53 mutant-like gene expression, and high liver regenerative gene expression. These pronounced features overshadowed the variation in the low-repair subset, but when considered separately, the low-repair samples included three subgroups: L1, L2, and L3. L3 had high DNA repair expression with worse progression-free (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81-1.91) and overall (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.98-2.71) survival. High-repair outcomes were also significantly worse compared with the L1 and L2 groups. HCCs vary in DNA repair expression, and a subset of tumors with high regeneration profoundly disrupts liver biology and poor prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.