ArticleGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2025
Evaluative Methodology for HRD Testing: Development of Standard Tools for Consistency Assessment.
Article in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 2025. 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.
- Efficacy and biomarker exploration of anlotinib plus penpulimab in second-line ES-SCLC: Results from the phase 2 ALTER-L041 trial.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Trial
- HRR gene promoter methylation-guided nomogram predicts PARP inhibitor efficacy and progression-free survival in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
- Inflammasome-associated pyroptosis and tumor angiogenesis in prostate cancer.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Review
- Comprehensive assessment of homologous recombination deficiency via simultaneous methylation and mutation analysis in epithelial ovarian cancer: implications for PARP inhibitors efficacy.Biomarker research · 2025Article
- Homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic characteristics, clinical implications, and predictive value in neoadjuvant therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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
Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) has emerged as a critical prognostic and predictive biomarker in oncology. However, current testing methods, especially those reliant on targeted panels, are plagued by inconsistent results from the same samples. This highlights the urgent need for standardized benchmarks to evaluate HRD assay performance. In phases IIa and IIb of the Chinese HRD Harmonization Project, we developed ten pairs of well-characterized DNA reference materials derived from lung, breast, and melanoma cancer cell lines and their matched normal cell lines, keeping each paired with seven cancer-to-normal mass ratios. Reference datasets for allele-specific copy number variations (ASCNVs) and HRD scores were established and validated using three sequencing methods and nine analytical pipelines. The genomic instability scores (GISs) of the reference materials ranged from 11 to 96, enabling validation across various thresholds. The ASCNV reference datasets covered a genomic span of 2340 to 2749 Mb, equivalent to 81.2% to 95.4% of the autosomes in the 37d5 reference genome. These benchmarks were subsequently utilized to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of four HRD panel assays, revealing significant variability in both ASCNV detection and HRD scores. The concordance between panel-detected GISs and reference GISs ranged from 0.81 to 0.94, with only two assays exhibiting high overall agreement with Myriad MyChoice CDx for HRD classification. This study also identified specific challenges in ASCNV detection in HRD-related regions and the profound impact of high ploidy on consistency. The established HRD reference materials and datasets provide a robust toolkit for objective evaluation of HRD testing.
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.