ReviewOncogene2008
Differences and evolution of the methods for the assessment of microsatellite instability.
Review in Oncogene, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.
- Worldwide variation in lynch syndrome screening: case for universal screening in low colorectal cancer prevalence areas.Familial cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors in dMMR-MSI-H colorectal cancer: rationale, progress and prospects.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Design and synthesis of N-aryl-2-trifluoromethyl-quinazoline-4-amine derivatives as potential Werner-dependent antiproliferative agents.Molecular diversity · 2025Article
- Association ofGut microbiome (Cambridge, England) · 2025Review
- PROTAC-mediated conditional degradation of the WRN helicase as a potential strategy for selective killing of cancer cells with microsatellite instability.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Current and Future Trends of Colorectal Cancer Treatment: Exploring Advances in Immunotherapy.Cancers · 2024Review
- Article
- The clinicopathological characteristics, prognosis and immune microenvironment mapping in MSI-H/MMR-D endometrial carcinomas.Discover oncology · 2022Article
- Assessment of Microsatellite Instability from Next-Generation Sequencing Data.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Microsatellite Instability Analysis (MSA) for Bladder Cancer: Past History and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- PD-L1 Expression Is Significantly Associated with Tumor Mutation Burden and Microsatellite Instability Score.Cancers · 2021Article
- Prognostic and Predictive Cross-Roads of Microsatellite Instability and Immune Response to Colon Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Diagnostic test assessment. Validation study of an alternative system to detect microsatellite instability in colorectal carcinoma.Pathologica · 2020Article
- Clinical implications of mismatch repair deficiency in prostate cancer.Future oncology (London, England) · 2019Review
- Screening of MSI detection loci and their heterogeneity in East Asian colorectal cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Improving diagnosis, prognosis and prediction by using biomarkers in CRC patients (Review).Oncology reports · 2018Review
- Evolving notions on immune response in colorectal cancer and their implications for biomarker development.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2018Review
- Long-term survivors of pancreatic adenocarcinoma show low rates of genetic alterations in KRAS, TP53 and SMAD4.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2018Article
- Accuracy of four mononucleotide-repeat markers for the identification of DNA mismatch-repair deficiency in solid tumors.Journal of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Molecular and Computational Methods for the Detection of Microsatellite Instability in Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microsatellite instability (MSI) originates from the systematic accumulation of uncorrected deletion/insertion in repetitive DNA tracts in cancer cells with a deficient mismatch repair system. Among colorectal cancers, the MSI signature identifies hereditary cases arising in patients with germline mutations in hMLH1, hMSH2, PMS2 and a fraction of those with hMSH6 mutations, as well as sporadic cancers with epigenetic hMLH1 promoter hypermethylation. Considering the specific pathogenesis, pathological features, natural history and response to 5-fluoro-uracil-based chemotherapy of the MSI cancers, confusion about the genetic markers for MSI recognition seems surprising. In this clinically relevant field, an agreement has not been reached concerning the use of di- or mononucleotide markers for MSI assessment. The Revised Bethesda Guidelines still recommend a panel of markers consisting of mono- and dinucleotides, despite being questioned whether it is congruous to continue to use dinucleotide markers for MSI identification. In any event, no single marker is accurate enough for MSI testing, and an awareness of their pros and cons is required for proper interpretation of results. In recent years, several papers have reported different prevalence of MSI in unrelated series, largely depending on the detection and classification method, suggesting that MSI test interpretation also requires the understanding of the phenomenon rather than simply the crude satisfaction of panel recommendations. Inaccuracies can otherwise lead to under- or overdiagnosis and inaccurate disease classification, which always have a negative impact on the clinical practice of medicine.
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.