ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Predisposition to prostate cancer and clinical implications in a real-life cohort.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging biomarkers in prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment: Insights into genetic, RNA and metabolic markers (Review).International journal of oncology · 2026Review
- What's new in EJHG this autumn.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic predisposition is identified in 5-10% of prostate cancer patients. Although genetic testing is more frequently proposed, international recommendations are lacking. This study evaluates the impact of germline analysis on management of prostate cancer patients. Retrospective descriptive data were collected from prostate cancer patients who attended oncogenetic counselling between 2018 and 2021. Data included clinical and tumoral characteristics, and genomic analysis. Comparative analysis was performed between patients with germline pathogenic variants (PVs) and non-carriers using non-parametric tests. Fourteen out of the 168 patients (8.3%) had a PV, primarily in DNA repair genes (N = 13/14), including BRCA1/2 (N = 5). Twenty-five patients (14.9%) had variants of undetermined significance. Patients with PVs were more likely to have synchronous metastatic extension (79% vs 43%, p = 0.02) and a Gleason score ≥8 (82% vs 53%, p = 0.11). Significant enrichment of ATM PVs compared to a healthy control cohort was observed with an odds ratio of 32.5 [15.8-67.0] (p < 0.05). Three of five patients with BRCA1/2 PVs received DNA repair-targeted treatment. This cohort provides insights into the impact of oncogenetic counselling on prostate cancer patients' management. It highlights the need to refine referral criteria based on disease stage and Gleason score and to further investigate ATM PVs. The data also underscore the importance of developing a care pathway with clear criteria for germline and/or somatic analysis to improve theranostic outcomes.
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.