Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38967864›Full record

ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2024

Is the Homologous Recombination Repair Mutation Defined by a 15-Gene Panel Associated with the Prognosis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer?

Yi Liu, Xiaojun Chen, Huaiwu Lu, Xin Wu, Xuehan Liu, Fei Xu, Dongdong Ye, Bo Ding, Xiaoyan Lu, Ling Qiu and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Yi Liu *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Core Facility Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230001, Anhui, China.
Xiaojun Chen *Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong-an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Huaiwu Lu *Department of Gynecological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510000, China.
Xin Wu *Department of Gynecological Oncology, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200082, China.
Xuehan LiuCore Facility Center for Medical Sciences, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Hefei, 230001, China.
Fei XuDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong-an Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Dongdong YeDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510000, China.
Bo DingDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China.
Xiaoyan LuZhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Ling QiuDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200082, China.
Jing ZhuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Core Facility Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230001, Anhui, China.
Yingying WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Core Facility Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230001, Anhui, China.
Xinya HuangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, The USTC RNA Institute, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Membraneless Organelles and Cellular Dynamics, School of Life Sciences, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, Biomedical Sciences and Health Laboratory of Anhui Province, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230027, Anhui, China.
Zhen ShenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Core Facility Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230001, Anhui, China. doctorsz0311@163.com.
Tao ZhuZhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China. zhutao@zjcc.org.cn.
Yang ShenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China. shenyang@seu.edu.cn.
Ying ZhouDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Core Facility Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230001, Anhui, China. caddiezy@ustc.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-8992-7897

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no consensus regarding the specific genes included in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene panel for identifying the HRR deficiency (HRD) status and predicting the prognosis of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients.

objectiveWe aimed to explore a 15-gene panel involving the HRR pathway as a predictive prognostic indicator in Chinese patients newly diagnosed with EOC. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe reviewed the previously published reports about different HRR gene panels and prespecified the 15-gene panel. The genetic testing results in a 15-gene panel from 308 EOC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2022 from six centers were collected. The association of clinicopathologic characteristics, the use of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) and progression-free survival (PFS) with 15-gene panel HRR mutations (HRRm) status was assessed.

results43.2% (133/308) of patients were determined to carry 144 deleterious HRRm, among which 68.1% (98/144) were germline mutations and 32.8% (101/308) were BRCA1/2 gene lethal mutations. The hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval, CI) for PFS (HRRm v HRR wild type, HRRwt) using the 15-gene panel HRRm was 0.42 (0.28-0.64) at all stages and 0.42 (0.27-0.65) at stages IIIC-IV. However, a prognostic difference was observed only between the BRCA mutation group and the HRRwt group, not between the non-BRCA HRRm group and the HRRwt group. For the subgroups of patients not using PARPis, the HR (95% CI) was 0.41 (0.24-0.68) at stages IIIC-IV.

conclusionsThis study provides evidence that 15-gene panel HRRm can predict the prognosis of EOC, of these only the BRCA1/2 mutations, not non-BRCA HRRm, contribute to prognosis prediction. Among patients without PARPis, the HRRm group presented a better PFS. This is the first study of this kind in the Chinese population.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialMutationOvarian NeoplasmsRecombinational DNA RepairAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinFemaleGerm-Line MutationHumansMiddle AgedPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID38967864

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.