SynthesisPloS one2024
The role of germline BRCA1 & BRCA2 mutations in familial pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFamilial Pancreatic Cancer (FPC) presents a notable risk, with 3-10% of pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases having a family history. Studies link FPC to syndromes like HBOC, suggesting BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations play a role. BRCA gene functions in DNA repair impact FPC management, influencing sensitivity to therapies like PARP inhibitors. Identifying mutations not only aids FPC treatment but also reveals broader cancer risks. However, challenges persist in selectively applying genetic testing due to cost constraints. This Systematic Review focuses on BRCA1/BRCA2 significance in FPC, diagnostic criteria, prognostic value, and limitations.
methodOriginal articles published from 2013 to January 2023 were sourced from databases such as Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect. Inclusion criteria comprised observational cohort or diagnostic studies related to the role of BRCA1/2 mutation in correlation to familial pancreatic cancer (FPC), while article reviews, narrative reviews, and non-relevant content were excluded. The assessment of bias used ROBINS-I, and the results were organized using PICOS criteria in a Google spreadsheet table. The systematic review adhered to the PRISMA 2020 checklist.
resultWe analyzed 9 diagnostic studies encompassing 1325 families and 4267 patients from Italy, USA, and Poland. Despite the limitation of limited homogenous PICO studies, our findings effectively present evidence. BRCA1/2 demonstrates benefits in detecting first-degree relatives FPC involvement with 2.26-10 times higher risk. These mutation findings also play an important role since with the BRCA1/2 targeted therapy, Poly-ADP Ribose Polymerase inhibitors (PARP) may give better outcomes of FPC treatment. Analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 administration's impact on odds ratio (OR) based on six and five studies respectively. BRCA1 exhibited non-significant effects (OR = 1.26, P = 0.51), while BRCA2 showed significance (OR = 1.68, P = 0.04). No heterogeneity observed, indicating consistent results. Further research on BRCA1 is warranted.
conclusionDetecting the BRCA1/2 mutation gene offers numerous advantages, particularly in its correlation with FPC. For diagnostic and prognostic purposes, testing is strongly recommended for first-degree relatives, who face a significantly higher risk (2.26-10 times) of being affected. Additionally, FPC patients with identified BRCA1/2 mutations exhibit a more favorable prognosis compared to the non-mutated population. This is attributed to the availability of targeted BRCA1/2 therapy, which maximizes treatment outcomes.
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.