Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32782288›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Prevalence of pathogenic variants in DNA damage response and repair genes in patients undergoing cancer risk assessment and reporting a personal history of early-onset renal cancer.

Tiffiney R Hartman, Elena V Demidova, Randy W Lesh, Lily Hoang, Marcy Richardson, Andrea Forman, Lisa Kessler, Virginia Speare, Erica A Golemis, Michael J Hall and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genotype-phenotype correlations inOncology reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Cells · 2020
    Review
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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Tiffiney R HartmanArcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA.
Elena V DemidovaCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19111-2497, USA.
Randy W LeshGeisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, USA.
Lily HoangAmbry Genetics, Konica Minolta, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA.
Marcy RichardsonAmbry Genetics, Konica Minolta, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA.
Andrea FormanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lisa KesslerArcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA.
Virginia SpeareAmbry Genetics, Konica Minolta, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA.
Erica A GolemisMolecular Therapeutics Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Michael J HallCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19111-2497, USA.
Mary B DalyCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19111-2497, USA.
Sanjeevani AroraCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19111-2497, USA. Sanjeevani.Arora@fccc.edu.
Fox Chase Cancer Center · USArcadia University · USKonica Minolta (United States) · USAmbry Genetics (United States) · USCommonwealth Medical College · USKazan Federal University · RU

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI Margaret von Mehren · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
Interaction of protein-targeted therapeutics and ciliary dynamicsR01DK108195 · NIDDK · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI GOLEMIS, ERICA A. · 2016 to 2020
$2.0M
Interaction of protein-targeted therapeutics and ciliary dynamicsR56DK108195 · NIDDK · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI GOLEMIS, ERICA A. · 2015 to 2015
$116k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK108195NIDDK NIH HHS R56 DK108195
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pathogenic variants (PVs) in multiple genes are known to increase the risk of early-onset renal cancer (eoRC). However, many eoRC patients lack PVs in RC-specific genes; thus, their genetic risk remains undefined. Here, we determine if PVs in DNA damage response and repair (DDRR) genes are enriched in eoRC patients undergoing cancer risk assessment. Retrospective review of de-identified results from 844 eoRC patients, undergoing testing with a multi-gene panel, for a variety of indications, by Ambry Genetics. PVs in cancer-risk genes were identified in 12.8% of patients-with 3.7% in RC-specific, and 8.55% in DDRR genes. DDRR gene PVs were most commonly identified in CHEK2, BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM. Among the 2.1% of patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV, < 50% reported a personal history of hereditary breast or ovarian-associated cancer. No association between age of RC diagnosis and prevalence of PVs in RC-specific or DDRR genes was observed. Additionally, 57.9% patients reported at least one additional cancer; breast cancer being the most common (40.1% of females, 2.5% of males). Multi-gene testing including DDRR genes may provide a more comprehensive risk assessment in eoRC patients. Further validation is needed to characterize the association with eoRC.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationAdultBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinCohort StudiesDNA DamageDNA RepairFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceRisk AssessmentBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 Protein

Identifiers

PMID32782288
PMCPMC7419503
OpenAlexW3048404043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.