Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25328415›Full record

ReviewThe application of clinical genetics2014

Clinical problems of colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer cases with unknown cause of tumor mismatch repair deficiency (suspected Lynch syndrome).

Daniel D Buchanan, Christophe Rosty, Mark Clendenning, Amanda B Spurdle, Aung Ko Win

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The application of clinical genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel D BuchananOncogenomics Group, Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia ; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Christophe RostyOncogenomics Group, Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia ; Envoi Specialist Pathologists, Herston, QLD, Australia ; School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Mark ClendenningOncogenomics Group, Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Amanda B SpurdleMolecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, Genetics and Computational Biology Division, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Aung Ko WinCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carriers of a germline mutation in one of the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes have a high risk of developing numerous different cancers, predominantly colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer (known as Lynch syndrome). MMR gene mutation carriers develop tumors with MMR deficiency identified by tumor microsatellite instability or immunohistochemical loss of MMR protein expression. Tumor MMR deficiency is used to identify individuals most likely to carry an MMR gene mutation. However, MMR deficiency can also result from somatic inactivation, most commonly methylation of the MLH1 gene promoter. As tumor MMR testing of all incident colorectal and endometrial cancers (universal screening) is becoming increasingly adopted, a growing clinical problem is emerging for individuals who have tumors that show MMR deficiency who are subsequently found not to carry an MMR gene mutation after genetic testing using the current diagnostic approaches (Sanger sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification) and who also show no evidence of MLH1 methylation. The inability to determine the underlying cause of tumor MMR deficiency in these "Lynch-like" or "suspected Lynch syndrome" cases has significant implications on the clinical management of these individuals and their relatives. When the data from published studies are combined, 59% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55% to 64%) of colorectal cancers and 52% (95% CI: 41% to 62%) of endometrial cancers with MMR deficiency were identified as suspected Lynch syndrome. Recent studies estimated that colorectal cancer risk for relatives of suspected Lynch syndrome cases is lower than for relatives of those with MMR gene mutations, but higher than for relatives of those with tumor MMR deficiency resulting from methylation of the MLH1 gene promoter. The cause of tumor MMR deficiency in suspected Lynch syndrome cases is likely due to either unidentified germline MMR gene mutations, somatic cell mosaicism, or biallelic somatic inactivation. Determining the underlying cause of tumor MMR deficiency in suspected Lynch syndrome cases is likely to reshape the current triaging schemes used to identify germline MMR gene mutations in cancer-affected individuals and their relatives.

Indexed as

cancer riskgermline mutationLynch syndromescreeningsomatic mutation

Identifiers

PMID25328415
PMCPMC4199650
OpenAlexW2069054764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.