Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26169059›Full record

ReviewAnnals of clinical biochemistry2015

The Mendelian colorectal cancer syndromes.

Ian Tomlinson

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of clinical biochemistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. The emerging era of personalized medicine in advanced colorectal cancer.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ian TomlinsonMolecular and Population Genetics Laboratory and Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK iant@well.ox.ac.uk.
Centre for Human Genetics · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16459Intramural NIH HHSWellcome Trust 090532
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A small minority of colorectal cancers (CRCs) (≤5%) are caused by a single, inherited faulty gene. These diseases, the Mendelian colorectal cancer (CRC) syndromes, have been central to our understanding of colorectal carcinogenesis in general. Most of the approximately 13 high-penetrance genes that predispose to CRC primarily predispose to colorectal polyps, and each gene is associated with a specific type of polyp, whether conventional adenomas (APC, MUTYH, POLE, POLD1, NTHL1), juvenile polyps (SMAD4, BMPR1A), Peutz-Jeghers hamartomas (LKB1/STK11) and mixed polyps of serrated and juvenile types (GREM1). Lynch syndrome (MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, PMS2), by contrast, is associated primarily with cancer risk. Major functional pathways are consistently inactivated in the Mendelian CRC syndromes: certain types of DNA repair (proofreading of DNA replication errors, mismatch repair and base excision repair) and signalling (bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), Wnt signalling and mTOR). The inheritance of the CRC syndromes also varies: most are dominant but some of the DNA repair deficiencies are recessive. Some of the Mendelian CRC genes are especially important because they play a role through somatic inactivation in sporadic CRC (APC, MLH1, SMAD4, POLE). Additional Mendelian CRC genes may remain to be discovered and searches for these genes are ongoing, especially in patients with multiple adenomas and hyperplastic polyps.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsHumansInheritance Patternscancergastrointestinal disordersGenetics

Identifiers

PMID26169059
PMCPMC4611988
OpenAlexW2257750322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.