Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35398881›Full record

ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2022

The Genomic Landscape of Early-Stage Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma.

Zhao Cheng, Hasan Mirza, Darren P Ennis, Philip Smith, Lena Morrill Gavarró, Chishimba Sokota, Gaia Giannone, Theodora Goranova, Thomas Bradley, Anna Piskorz and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Zhao ChengDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3514-240X
Hasan Mirza *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6460-5290
Darren P Ennis *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Philip SmithCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9306-1747
Lena Morrill GavarróCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2242-4010
Chishimba SokotaDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Gaia GiannoneDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Theodora GoranovaCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Thomas BradleyCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0218-5021
Anna PiskorzCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Michelle LockleyCentre for Cancer Cell and Molecular Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9281-5789
BriTROC-1 Investigators
Baljeet KaurDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Naveena SinghDepartment of Pathology, Barts Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Laura A TookmanDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jonathan KrellDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jacqueline McDermottDepartment of Pathology, University College London Hospital NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Geoffrey MacintyreCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3906-467X
Florian MarkowetzCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2784-5308
James D BrentonCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5738-6683
Iain A McNeishDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9387-7586

Funding

Cancer Research UK A11592Cancer Research UK A15601Cancer Research UK A15973Cancer Research UK A18072Cancer Research UK A19274Cancer Research UK A22905Department of Health IS-BRC-1215-20013Department of Health P77646Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust RG92770
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOvarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is usually diagnosed at late stage. We investigated whether late-stage HGSC has unique genomic characteristics consistent with acquisition of evolutionary advantage compared with early-stage tumors. EXPERIMENTAL

designWe performed targeted next-generation sequencing and shallow whole-genome sequencing (sWGS) on pretreatment samples from 43 patients with FIGO stage I-IIA HGSC to investigate somatic mutations and copy-number (CN) alterations (SCNA). We compared results to pretreatment samples from 52 patients with stage IIIC/IV HGSC from the BriTROC-1 study.

resultsAge of diagnosis did not differ between early-stage and late-stage patients (median 61.3 years vs. 62.3 years, respectively). TP53 mutations were near-universal in both cohorts (89% early-stage, 100% late-stage), and there were no significant differences in the rates of other somatic mutations, including BRCA1 and BRCA2. We also did not observe cohort-specific focal SCNA that could explain biological behavior. However, ploidy was higher in late-stage (median, 3.0) than early-stage (median, 1.9) samples. CN signature exposures were significantly different between cohorts, with greater relative signature 3 exposure in early-stage and greater signature 4 in late-stage. Unsupervised clustering based on CN signatures identified three clusters that were prognostic.

conclusionsEarly-stage and late-stage HGSCs have highly similar patterns of mutation and focal SCNA. However, CN signature analysis showed that late-stage disease has distinct signature exposures consistent with whole-genome duplication. Further analyses will be required to ascertain whether these differences reflect genuine biological differences between early-stage and late-stage or simply time-related markers of evolutionary fitness. See related commentary by Yang et al., p. 2730.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFemaleGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMiddle AgedMutation

Identifiers

PMID35398881
PMCPMC7612959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.