ArticleCancers2024
Stratification of Homologous Recombination Deficiency-Negative High-Grade Ovarian Cancer by the Type of Peritoneal Spread into Two Groups with Distinct Survival Outcomes.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- CT imaging features as predictors of homologous recombination deficiency and prognosis in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Homologous recombination deficiency-driven genomic instability in ovarian cancer as an indicator of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant pathogenicity.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- The use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy in ovarian carcinosarcoma: A case series.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Survival of Ovarian Cancer Patients According to Homologous Recombination Deficiency Status.Cancers · 2025Article
- BRCA loss of function including BRCA1 DNA-methylation, but not BRCA-unrelated homologous recombination deficiency, is associated with platinum hypersensitivity in high-grade ovarian cancer.Clinical epigenetics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHomologous recombination deficiency (HRD) has evolved into a major diagnostic marker in high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC), predicting the response to poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and also platinum-based therapy. In addition to HRD, the type of peritoneal tumor spread influences the treatment response and patient survival; miliary type tumor spread has a poorer predicted outcome than non-miliary type tumor spread.
methodsKnown methods for HRD assessment were adapted for our technical requirements and the predictive-value integrated genomic instability score (PIGIS) for HRD assessment evolved as an outcome. PIGIS was validated in HGOC samples from 122 patients. We used PIGIS to analyze whether the type of tumor spread correlated with HRD status and whether this had an impact on survival.
resultsWe demonstrated that PIGIS can discriminate HRD-positive from HRD-negative samples. Tumors with a miliary tumor spread are HRD-negative and have a very bad prognosis with a progression-free survival (PFS) of 15.6 months and an overall survival (OS) of 3.9 years. However, HRD-negative non-miliary spreading tumors in our cohort had a much better prognosis (PFS 35.4 months, OS 8.9 years); similar to HRD-positive tumors (PFS 34.7 months, OS 8.9 years).
conclusionsOur results indicate that in a predominantly PARPi naïve cohort, the type of tumor spread and concomitant cytoreduction efficiency is a better predictor of survival than HRD and that HRD may be an accidental surrogate marker for tumor spread and concomitant cytoreduction efficiency. It remains to be determined whether this also applies for sensitivity to PARPi.
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.