ArticleThe oncologist2025
Clinical impact of UV mutational signatures in Veterans with cancer.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUV-related DNA damage signature (UVsig) is highly specific for cutaneous cancers. The prevalence of UVsig among tumors without a primary site and tumors of extracutaneous origin were previously reported, suggesting potential misclassification of cancers. Our study aims to assess if the knowledge of UVsig at diagnosis would change first-line treatment recommendation.
methodsThe main outcome was the potential clinical impact (PCI) of UVsig. High PCI was defined as UVsig leading to change in diagnosis and first-line therapy. Medium PCI was a change in diagnosis, but appropriate therapy was offered. Low PCI group had diagnosis modified by clinicians and treated as cutaneous cancer independently of UVsig.
resultsAmong 5565 cases, 650 (12%) were positive for a UVsig. In the cancer of unknown primary group: 20 (49%), 9 (22%), and 12 (29%) cases were categorized in the high, medium, and low PCI group, respectively. In the cancer of extracutaneous origin cohort: 22 (54%), 15 (36%), and 4 (10%) cases were high, medium, and low PCI, respectively. The diagnosis would have changed in 14% of Veterans with UVsig positive tumor. Among all high PCI cases, 37 (88%) received chemotherapy that was not indicated based on a UVsig-informed diagnosis of cutaneous malignancy.
conclusionOur study suggested that UVsig would lead to revision of the working clinical diagnosis and significantly alter the first-line treatment in at least half of cancers of unknown primary or extracutaneous origin with UVsig. Knowledge of UVsig could lead to more effective and less toxic therapy for patients with cancer.
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.