Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37818031›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2023

Male awareness of prostate cancer risk remains poor in relatives of women with germline variants in DNA-repair genes.

Vittorio Fasulo, NicolòMaria Buffi, Giuseppe Chiarelli, Giovanni Lughezzani, Monica Zuradelli, Carla Barbara Ripamonti, Monica Barile, Paolo Bianchi, Alessio Benetti, Marco Paciotti and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. ComprehensiveFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vittorio FasuloDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
NicolòMaria BuffiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Giuseppe ChiarelliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Giovanni LughezzaniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3939-4521
Monica ZuradelliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Carla Barbara RipamontiLaboratory Analysis Unit IRCCS-Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano MI Italy.
Monica BarileLaboratory Analysis Unit IRCCS-Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano MI Italy.
Paolo BianchiLaboratory Analysis Unit IRCCS-Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano MI Italy.
Alessio BenettiDepartment of Urology IRCCS-Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano MI Italy.
Marco PaciottiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8456-6495
Alessandro UleriDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Pier Paolo AvolioDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Alberto SaitaDepartment of Urology IRCCS-Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano MI Italy.
Rodolfo HurleDepartment of Urology IRCCS-Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano MI Italy.
Federica MauraDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Luca GermagnoliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Rosanna AsseltaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Giulia SoldàDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Paolo CasaleDepartment of Urology IRCCS-Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano MI Italy.
Massimo LazzeriDepartment of Urology IRCCS-Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano MI Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4411-3715
Humanitas University · ITIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Abstract. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate male awareness of developing prostate cancer (PCa) in families with germline DNA-repair genes (DRG) variants. Materials and methods: Data were collected from a prospective, monocentric cohort study. The study was conducted in a university hospital with a multidisciplinary approach to the patient (collaboration of the Departments of Oncology, Urology, Pathology, Radiology, and Medical Genetics Laboratory). We recruited healthy males, relatives of families of women with breast or ovarian cancer who tested positive for pathogenic variants (PVs) or likely pathogenic variants (LPVs) in DRGs. A dedicated PCa screening was designed and offered to men aged 35 to 69 years, based on early visits with digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate health index (PHI) measurement, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and, if necessary, targeted/systematic prostate biopsies. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the willingness of healthy men from families with a DRG variants detected in female relatives affected with breast and/or ovarian cancer to be tested for the presence of familial PVs. The secondary endpoints were the acceptance to participate if resulted positive and compliance with the screening programme. Results: Over 1256 families, of which 139 resulted positive for PVs in DRGs, we identified 378 'healthy' men aged between 35 and 69 years old. Two hundred sixty-one (69.0%) refused to be tested for DRG variants, 66 (17.5%) declared to have been previously tested, and 51 (13.5%) males were interested to be tested. Between those previously tested and those who accepted to be tested, 62 (53.0%) were positive for a DRG variant, and all of them accepted to participate in the subsequent surveillance steps. The main limitation is that is a single-centre study and a short follow-up. Conclusions: All men tested positive for a DRG variants agreed to go under the surveillance scheme. However, only 31% of 'men at risk' (i.e., relative of a DRG variant carrier) expressed their willingness to be tested for the familial DRG variant. This observation strongly supports the urgent need to implement awareness of genetic risk for PCa within the male population.

Indexed as

BRCA 1‐2DNA‐repair gene variantgenetic riskprostate cancerscreening

Identifiers

PMID37818031
PMCPMC10560622
OpenAlexW4381929020

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.