ArticleBMC cancer2023
Pan-cancer analysis of whole-genome doubling and its association with patient prognosis.
Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the Consequences of Aneuploidy in Cancer and Normal Tissue.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Proteogenomic profiling of soft tissue leiomyosarcoma reveals distinct molecular subtypes with divergent outcomes and therapeutic vulnerabilities.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Unique molecular assay (UMA): a next-generation sequencing targeted panel for efficient and comprehensive genomic profiling and risk stratification of multiple myeloma.Haematologica · 2025Article
- E2F activity determines mitosis versus whole-genome duplication in G2-arrested cells.Nature communications · 2025Article
- CINner: Modeling and simulation of chromosomal instability in cancer at single-cell resolution.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- An elevated rate of whole-genome duplications in cancers from Black patients.Nature communications · 2024Article
- CINner: modeling and simulation of chromosomal instability in cancer at single-cell resolution.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhole-genome doubling (WGD) is a common mutation in cancer. Various studies have suggested that WGD is associated with a poor prognosis in cancer. However, the detailed association between WGD occurrence and prognosis remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the mechanism by which WGD affects prognosis using sequencing data from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) and The Cancer Genome Atlas.
methodsWhole-genome sequencing data of 23 cancer types were downloaded from PCAWG project. We defined the WGD event in each sample using the WGD status annotated using PCAWG. We used MutationTimeR to predict the relative timings of mutations and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in WGD, thus evaluating their association with WGD. We also analyzed the association between WGD-associated factors and patient prognosis.
resultsWGD was associated with several factors, e.g., length of LOH regions. Survival analysis using WGD-associated factors revealed that longer LOH regions and LOH in chr17 were associated with poor prognosis in samples with WGD (WGD samples) and samples without WGD (nWGD samples). In addition to these two factors, nWGD samples showed that the number of mutations in tumor suppressor genes was associated with prognosis. Moreover, we explored the genes associated with prognosis in both samples separately.
conclusionThe prognosis-related factors in WGD samples differed significantly compared with those in nWGD samples. This study emphasizes the need for different treatment strategies for WGD and nWGD samples.
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.