ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2025
Homologous recombination deficiency test validation in patients with high-grade advanced ovarian cancer.
Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- LOH, LST, and TAI Profiles in Solid Tumors Harboring Pathogenic or Likely PathogenicInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Along with Objective: To technically validate an Methods: This is a prospective cohort study conducted at the Oncoclínicas Precision Medicine (OCPM) laboratory using samples from patients with advanced or relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer eligible for HRD testing in a diagnostic clinical setting at Oncoclínicas and Co. We assessed the performance of the in-house test (GS Focus HRD) using Cohen's kappa statistic to measure agreement with the gold standard assay (MyChoice® HRD Plus CDx) in HRD status classification, along with other accuracy metrics. Results: In total, 41 samples were analyzed (20 HRD-positive, 19 HRD-negative, and 2 inconclusive results with the MyChoice® HRD Plus CDx assay). The GS Focus HRD test demonstrated high concordance for HRD status with the reference test (kappa: 0.8 and 95% CI: 0.60-0.98). Overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 90%. Six samples had Conclusion: In summary, the results demonstrate substantial agreement and high accuracy of the NGS-based GS Focus HRD test compared to MyChoice® HRD Plus CDx. Our in-house assay is eligible for diagnostic test approval and market access as per Brazilian regulations.
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.