Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18759827›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2008

Identification in daily practice of patients with Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer): revised Bethesda guidelines-based approach versus molecular screening.

Catherine Julié, Christophe Trésallet, Antoine Brouquet, Céline Vallot, Ute Zimmermann, Emmanuel Mitry, François Radvanyi, Etienne Rouleau, Rosette Lidereau, Florence Coulet and 10 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Catherine JuliéService d'Anatomie et de Cytologie Pathologiques, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, AP-HP, Université Versailles-Saint Quentin en Yvelines, Boulogne, France.
Christophe Trésallet
Antoine Brouquet
Céline Vallot
Ute Zimmermann
Emmanuel Mitry
François Radvanyi
Etienne Rouleau
Rosette Lidereau
Florence Coulet
Sylviane Olschwang
Thierry Frébourg
Philippe Rougier
Bernard Nordlinger
Pierre Laurent-Puig
Christophe Penna
Catherine Boileau
Brigitte Franc
Christine Muti
Hélène Hofmann-Radvanyi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe identification of individuals who should undergo hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) genetic testing remains a critical issue. The Bethesda guidelines were developed to preselect patients for microsatellite instability (MSI) testing before germline mutation screening. These criteria have been revised, and a new set of recommendations, the revised Bethesda guidelines, has been proposed.

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of these revised guidelines for identifying patients with HNPCC in a series of unselected consecutive patients and compare this revised guidelines-based approach with a molecular strategy (MSI testing for all tumors, followed by exclusion of MSI-positive sporadic cases from mutational testing). PATIENTS AND

methodsThe study included 214 patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. The MSI analysis was performed for all tumors. Germline testing, guided by immunohistochemical staining for mismatch repair proteins, was performed for patients with MSI-positive tumors. Sporadic MSI-positive tumors were identified by screening for BRAF mutation and MLH1 promoter methylation.

resultsNinety patients (42.1%) met the revised guidelines. Twenty-one patients (9.8%) had MSI-positive tumors. Germline testing identified eight mutations (3.7%) (MSH2 N = 5, MLH1 N = 2, MSH6 N =1). The revised guidelines failed to identify 2 of the 8 probands (aged 67 and 81 yr, both with no family history). In contrast, the molecular strategy identified all patients requiring testing for germline mutation. The percentages of patients selected for germline testing by the revised guidelines and the molecular strategy were 4.2% and 5.1%, respectively.

conclusionsThe revised Bethesda guidelines did not identify all HNPCC cases in our series. The molecular approach identified all HNPCC patients with MSI-positive tumors, increasing the workload for germline testing only slightly.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingPractice Guidelines as TopicColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.