Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42433835›Full record

ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026

Examining the connection between BRCA1/2 mutations and uterine cancer: a comprehensive review.

Safa Mohammed Saleem, Syed Aasim Syed Nasir, Faiza Nida, Muddassir Khalid, Harsh Gandhi, Muhammad Hassaan Javaid, Abhishek Roy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Safa Mohammed SaleemDepartment of Medicine, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Syed Aasim Syed NasirDepartment of Medicine, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Faiza NidaDepartment of Medicine, East European University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Muddassir KhalidDepartment of Medicine, Nishtar Medical University, Multan, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0717-2777
Harsh GandhiDepartment of Medicine, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Muhammad Hassaan JavaidDepartment of Medicine, Shifa College of Medicine, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Abhishek RoyDepartment of Medicine, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA fix needs BRCA1 and BRCA2. These genes stop bad cell growth. They sit on links 17 and 13. Bad changes in some genes raise the risk of womb cancer. This is true for a type called serous. These faults also boost the chance for womb and breast bad growth. BRCA1 faults lead to more severe womb tumors than BRCA2 faults. Drugs like tamoxifen increase this risk more. More breast trouble adds risk, too. The risk of womb cancer in a lifetime is still small - not quite 3% for BRCA1 folk and just 1 or 2% for BRCA2 folk. Yet, BRCA1 faults might bring worse sorts of womb growth. These have bad cell traits and weak fix tools. Now, rules do not say all BRCA folk must have their wombs removed or get womb checks. They say to talk hard about risks. Think of drug use, weight, and past breast issues. New tools look at many cell parts at once. This helps grasp how BRCA links to bad growth. It lets us pick just the right cures, like PARP drugs. But past studies differ. We need wide, long studies with many groups of folks. This will show the real womb cancer risk. So, BRCA faults do play a small but key part in a bad womb growth type. But they mainly boost breast and egg trouble.

Indexed as

BRCA1/2 mutationsendometrial cancergenetic predispositionprecision oncologyuterine serous carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID42433835
PMCPMC13354422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.