Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20495877›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2010

Magnetic resonance colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with Lynch syndrome gene mutation.

Eu Jin Lim, Christopher Leung, Alex Pitman, Damien L Stella, Gregor Brown, Masha Slattery, Kaye Marion, Finlay Macrae

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Familial cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. A pilot study evaluating genetic alterations that drive tobacco- and betel quid-associated oral cancer in Northeast India.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014
    Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Eu Jin LimDepartment of Gastroenterology and Clinical Nutrition Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia. ejlim@rocketmail.com
Christopher Leung
Alex Pitman
Damien L Stella
Gregor Brown
Masha Slattery
Kaye Marion
Finlay Macrae
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUAustralian Mathematical Sciences Institute · AUSt Vincent's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lynch syndrome gene carriers have a 50-80% risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Current guidelines recommend yearly colonoscopy, with associated procedure-related risks. Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) was evaluated as a non-invasive alternative for CRC screening in this high-risk population. Adult Lynch syndrome gene carriers underwent both screening procedures on the same day. MRI radiologists read the scans and rated image quality. Endoscopists performed colonoscopy unaware of MRC findings until after procedure completion. If lesions were detected, their number, size and location were noted. Post-procedure, patients compared discomfort and inconvenience of MRC and colonoscopy on a visual analogue scale. Thirty patients were recruited. 83% of the MRC scans were of adequate to good quality. MRC detected three lesions in three patients (70, 36, 17 mm). All 3 were independently detected on colonoscopy, excised and found to be CRC. MRC failed to detect a 3 mm CRC found on colonoscopy. CRC prevalence was 13%. Colonoscopy detected a further 30 polyps, all <10 mm. Of these, 17 were hyperplastic polyps and 10 normal mucosa. Colonoscopy had a false positive rate of 32% as defined by histology. MRC failed to detect any polyp <10 mm. Mean patient discomfort scores were 20% for MRC and 68% for colonoscopy, P = 0.003. Mean patient inconvenience scores were 54% for MRC and 52% for colonoscopy, P = 0.931. MRC was reliable in detecting large polyps, potentially CRC. However MRC currently has poor sensitivity in detecting small polyps, limiting its utility in adenoma screening at this time. MRC was associated with less discomfort than CC.

Indexed as

Colonography, Computed TomographicGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdaptor Proteins, Signal TransducingAdenocarcinomaAdenomaAdultAgedColonic PolypsColonoscopyColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA Mutational AnalysisDNA, NeoplasmFemaleFollow-Up StudiesAdaptor Proteins, Signal TransducingDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA, NeoplasmG-T mismatch-binding proteinMLH1 protein, humanMSH2 protein, humanMutL Protein Homolog 1MutS Homolog 2 ProteinNuclear Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20495877
OpenAlexW1973227156

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.