ArticleThe pharmacogenomics journal2025
Integrating epidemiology and genomics data to estimate the prevalence of acquired cysteine drug targets in the U.S. cancer patient population.
Article in The pharmacogenomics journal, 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.
- A catalogue of missense and nonsense mutation abundances for the U.S. cancer patient population.medRxiv : the preprint server for health 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reliable estimates for the number of cancer patients with a specific mutation can help quantify the size of the population that could potentially benefit from a targeted therapy. We adapt our previously developed approach for estimating gene-level mutation abundances to estimate mutation-specific (e.g., KRAS G12C) abundances by combining United States cancer epidemiology and genomic data. We demonstrate the approach by obtaining population-level estimates for all acquired somatic missense mutations that create a de novo cysteine residue. We find that approximately 14% of non-epidemiological informed estimates are more than twice the epidemiological informed estimate. Non-epidemiologically informed pan-cancer estimation of mutation rates may not be representative of the number of cancer patients with a specific mutation. Our study suggests that epidemiological and genomic information should be combined when estimating the population level abundance of specific pathogenic mutations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40044654What 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.