Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35662281›Full record

ArticleOncogene2022

Functional RECAP (REpair CAPacity) assay identifies homologous recombination deficiency undetected by DNA-based BRCAness tests.

Titia G Meijer, Luan Nguyen, Arne Van Hoeck, Anieta M Sieuwerts, Nicole S Verkaik, Marjolijn M Ladan, Kirsten Ruigrok-Ritstier, Carolien H M van Deurzen, Harmen J G van de Werken, Esther H Lips and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncogene, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Motion-based tissueClinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Integrative Genomic Tests in Clinical Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  19. 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

19 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Titia G MeijerDepartment of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. t.meijer@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2235-6345
Luan NguyenOncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Arne Van HoeckOncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anieta M SieuwertsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nicole S VerkaikDepartment of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marjolijn M LadanDepartment of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Kirsten Ruigrok-RitstierDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Carolien H M van DeurzenDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Harmen J G van de WerkenCancer Computational Biology Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9794-1477
Esther H LipsDepartment of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3488-4935
Sabine C LinnDepartment of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Yasin MemariAcademic Department of Medical Genetics, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Helen DaviesAcademic Department of Medical Genetics, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6381-3664
Serena Nik-ZainalAcademic Department of Medical Genetics, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Roland KanaarDepartment of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
John W M MartensDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3428-3366
Edwin CuppenOncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Agnes JagerDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Dik C van GentDepartment of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1473-8148
Erasmus MC · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Cambridge · GBThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Germline BRCA1/2 mutation status is predictive for response to Poly-[ADP-Ribose]-Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in breast cancer (BC) patients. However, non-germline BRCA1/2 mutated and homologous recombination repair deficient (HRD) tumors are likely also PARP-inhibitor sensitive. Clinical validity and utility of various HRD biomarkers are under investigation. The REpair CAPacity (RECAP) test is a functional method to select HRD tumors based on their inability to form RAD51 foci. We investigated whether this functional test defines a similar group of HRD tumors as DNA-based tests. An HRD enriched cohort (n = 71; 52 primary and 19 metastatic BCs) selected based on the RECAP test (26 RECAP-HRD; 37%), was subjected to DNA-based HRD tests (i.e., Classifier of HOmologous Recombination Deficiency (CHORD) and BRCA1/2-like classifier). Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was carried out for 38 primary and 19 metastatic BCs. The RECAP test identified all bi-allelic BRCA deficient samples (n = 15) in this cohort. RECAP status partially correlated with DNA-based HRD test outcomes (70% concordance for both RECAP-CHORD and RECAP-BRCA1/2-like classifier). RECAP selected additional samples unable to form RAD51 foci, suggesting that this functional assay identified deficiencies in other DNA repair genes, which could also result in PARP-inhibitor sensitivity. Direct comparison of these HRD tests in clinical trials will be required to evaluate the optimal predictive test for clinical decision making.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinDNAFemaleHomologous RecombinationHumansPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsPoly(ADP-ribose) PolymerasesRecombinational DNA RepairAntineoplastic AgentsBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinDNAPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerases

Identifiers

PMID35662281
PMCPMC9232391
OpenAlexW4281617860

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.