ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Development and validation of an individualized DNA repair-related gene signature in localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification and validation of prognosis-associated DNA repair gene signatures in colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo establish a robust, individualized DNA repair-related gene signature to estimate prognosis for patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed gene expression profiles of 541 localized ccRCC patients from two public ccRCC cohorts. The DNA repair-related gene pair index (DRPI) was constructed with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model. The associations between DRPI, overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis, univariate analysis, and multivariate Cox regression survival analysis. We compared the predictive accuracy of different risk models with Harrel's C-index.
resultsIn the primary univariate analysis, patients in DRPI-high-risk group had significantly shorter OS [P < 0.001, HR (95% CI) 2.093 (1.431-3.061)] and DSS [P < 0.001, HR (95% CI) 3.567 (2.017-6.339)]. After adjusted for stage and grade, DRPI-high-risk group remained an independent adverse risk factor for both OS [P = 0.026, HR (95% CI) 1.629 (1.094-2.452)] and DSS [P = 0.010, HR (95% CI) 2.209 (1.217-4.010)]. DPRI showed comparable predictive accuracy with cell cycle proliferation (CCP) score and ccA/ccB signature. Copy number alterations and tumor mutation burden were enriched in DRPI-high tumors. There were elevated number of Treg cells and higher T cell exhaustion marker expression in DRPI-high-risk tumors. The combined DNA repair-clinical score outperformed other risk models in terms of C-index.
conclusionWe validated the proposed DRPI as a predictor of clinical outcome in localized ccRCC patients. It provides an individualized and more accurate risk assessment beyond clinicopathological characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.