ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of predictive biomarkers for late radiation toxicity in breast cancer patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Radiotherapy is administered to 70% of breast cancer patients, but late complications such as breast fibrosis remain a significant clinical concern. Individual variability significantly influences radiosensitivity, underscoring the need for predictive biomarkers suitable for clinical application. We evaluated five assays using blood samples from 22 matched pairs of treated breast cancer patients, including one female who developed fibrosis grade II or higher and a female who did not. Matching was performed accounting for treatment type, tumor characteristics, and other variables. The assays included γ-H2AX detection, radiation-induced apoptosis evaluation, and cytogenetic analysis by chromosomal instability testing, and assessment of radiation-induced damage in G0- and G2- phase lymphocytes. The results indicated that patients who developed fibrosis presented significantly lower values in the G2 assay and higher values in the chromosomal instability test. The G2 assay evaluates the integrity of the G2/M checkpoint, while the chromosomal instability test measures chromosomal instability through crosslink sensitivity. In contrast, the other evaluated tests did not discriminate between groups. Considering the cohort and the variability in all tests, our results suggest that G2 assay and chromosomal instability test would be robust predictors of radiotherapy-induced breast fibrosis. Validation in a larger retrospective or prospective study is necessary.
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.