Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25590981›Full record

SynthesisGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2015

Family history and the natural history of colorectal cancer: systematic review.

Nora B Henrikson, Elizabeth M Webber, Katrina A Goddard, Aaron Scrol, Margaret Piper, Marc S Williams, Doris T Zallen, Ned Calonge, Theodore G Ganiats, A Cecile J W Janssens and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

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

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

14 authors.

Nora B HenriksonGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3459-7787
Elizabeth M WebberKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Katrina A GoddardKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Aaron ScrolGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Margaret PiperKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6231-9653
Marc S WilliamsGeisinger Health System, Genomic Medicine Institute, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6165-8701
Doris T ZallenVirginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5688-5640
Ned CalongeThe Colorado Trust, Denver, Colorado, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2653-6001
Theodore G GaniatsUniversity of California, San Diego, San Diego, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3920-3708
A Cecile J W JanssensEmory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6153-4976
Ann ZauberMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marjolein van BallegooijenDepartment of Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Evelyn P WhitlockKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748OGDP CDC HHS 5U18GD000076-02OGDP CDC HHS U18 GD000076
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFamily history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a known risk factor for CRC and encompasses both genetic and shared environmental risks.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review to estimate the impact of family history on the natural history of CRC and adherence to screening.

resultsWe found high heterogeneity in family-history definitions, the most common definition being one or more first-degree relatives. The prevalence of family history may be lower than the commonly cited 10%, and confirms evidence for increasing levels of risk associated with increasing family-history burden. There is evidence for higher prevalence of adenomas and of multiple adenomas in people with family history of CRC but no evidence for differential adenoma location or adenoma progression by family history. Limited data regarding the natural history of CRC by family history suggest a differential age or stage at cancer diagnosis and mixed evidence with respect to tumor location. Adherence to recommended colonoscopy screening was higher in people with a family history of CRC.

conclusionStratification based on polygenic and/or multifactorial risk assessment may mature to the point of displacing family history-based approaches, but for the foreseeable future, family history may remain a valuable clinical tool for identifying individuals at increased risk for CRC.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFamily HealthGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansPrevalenceRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID25590981
PMCPMC4955831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.