ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Clinical-genomic characteristics of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in breast cancer: application model for practice.
Article in European journal of medical research, 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.
- Emerging Breast Cancer Subpopulations: Functional Heterogeneity Beyond the Classical Subtypes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHomologous recombination deficiency (HRD) affects breast cancer patients. Treatment guided by multigene testing may be particularly beneficial in HRD patients by using platinum-based drugs and poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi). However, the optimal method for HRD testing remains undetermined by guidelines or consensus and economic disparities limit the availability of genetic testing. Prioritizing HRD testing by clinical-genomic characteristics is critical for efficient utilization of healthcare resources and improved treatment accuracy.
methodsA total of 93 breast cancer patients who underwent HRD genetic testing were included in the study. According to the machine learning model called genomic scar (GS) HRD was defined as a genomic scar score (GSS) ≥ 50 or with deleterious mutation in the BRCA. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was employed to identify the clinical-pathological factors potentially associated with HRD. Suitable variables were selected to construct a predictive model, and the model's efficacy was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Internal validation was performed using bootstrap resampling (500 replicates).
resultsPatients harboring pathogenic mutation in BRCA exhibited higher GSS (99.85 vs 36.90). HRD was not detected in 41.75% of patients, and 34.95% had HRD but no BRCA pathogenic mutations. HRD risk in human epidermal factor growth receptor 2 (HER2) low or positive was significantly lower compared to HER2 negative (OR: 0.390, 95% CI: 0.159-0.959, P = 0.040). High Ki- 67 index was strongly associated with HRD (OR: 28.434, 95% CI: 3.283-246.293, P = 0.002). Significant variations in GSS were observed based on estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status, histological grade, and molecular types. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the combined prediction model combining HER2 status and Ki- 67 index was 0.749, and the accuracy of the model was further validated using bootstrap resampling (500 replicates), resulting in an AUC of 0.730, indicating a high predictive accuracy for HRD status.
conclusionsBRCA mutation status did not fully reflect HRD status. Patients with a negative HER2 status and high Ki- 67 index are more likely to exhibit positive results when undergoing HRD genetic testing. The ER, PR, HER- 2 status, Ki- 67 index, molecular typing, and histological grading may have a strong influence on the HRD status.
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.