ArticleBMC cancer2025
Germline mutational landscape in a large cohort of Indian breast cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breast cancer has emerged as the leading malignancy among Indian women, with a notable subset of cases linked to inherited genetic predisposition. Germline testing is a vital tool for identifying individuals at elevated risk, guiding targeted therapies such as PARP inhibitors, and informing preventive strategies through family-based screening. However, population-specific data from India remain limited, and most studies have focused narrowly on BRCA1/2. In this study, we employed high-depth germline whole exome sequencing to comprehensively evaluate cancer susceptibility in 479 unselected Indian breast cancer patients sourced from a National Cancer Tissue Biobank. Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 24.6% of the cohort, including 8.35% in BRCA1/2. Notably, 67% of these findings were in non-BRCA genes, including HRR and tumor suppressor genes, which would be missed by BRCA-only testing. The unbiased, broad-panel approach enabled evaluation of emerging susceptibility genes such as RECQL. Additionally, we identified two clinically significant DPYD variants (c.1679T > G and c.1905 + 1G > A), associated with fluoropyrimidine toxicity risk. Beyond cancer risk, medically actionable secondary findings were detected in 21.7% of individuals, with variants in non-oncology genes listed in ACMG SF v3.2. Together, these findings highlight the genetic heterogeneity of hereditary breast cancer in India and demonstrate the clinical utility of comprehensive germline testing. While targeted multi-gene panels may suffice in clinical settings, whole-exome sequencing provides additional benefits by uncovering ancestry-specific susceptibility genes and actionable variants relevant for therapy and prevention in genetically diverse populations.
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.