Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39724448›Full record

ReviewCancer metastasis reviews2024

Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) diagnostics: underlying mechanisms and new perspectives.

Andrey Kechin, Maksim Koryukov, Regina Mikheeva, Maksim Filipenko

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer metastasis reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Andrey KechinInstitute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia. aa_kechin@niboch.nsc.ru.
Maksim KoryukovInstitute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Regina MikheevaInstitute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Maksim FilipenkoInstitute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is considered a universal and effective sign of a tumor's sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. HRD diagnostics have undergone several stages of transformations: from detection of point mutations in HR-related genes and large regions with loss of heterozygosity detected using single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays to whole-genome signatures of single-nucleotide variants, large genomic rearrangements (LGRs), and copy number alterations. All these methods have their own advantages and limitations. HRD tests, based on signatures of LGRs and copy number alterations, show in hindsight that some progenitor cells have possessed HRD status but not the current state of the genome. The aim of this review was to compare different methods of HRD detection and mechanisms of formation of HRD-specific LGRs. In the last several years, new data appeared implying a crucial role of proteins BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the resolution of stalled replication forks that may be associated with at least some of LGRs observed in HRD-positive tumors. Reviewing current knowledge on these mechanisms, distributions of different LGR types, and limitations of sequencing technologies and algorithms of data analysis, we offer some new perspectives on HRD diagnostics. We hope that this review will help to accelerate the development of new diagnostic approaches in this important field of molecular oncology.

Indexed as

Homologous RecombinationNeoplasmsAnimalsHumansLoss of HeterozygosityBRCA1BRCA2CancerPARP inhibitorReplication restart

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.