Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26480326›Full record

ArticleCancer2016

Initiation of universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients as a model for the implementation of genetic information into clinical oncology practice.

Stacey A Cohen, Mercy Laurino, Deborah J Bowen, Melissa P Upton, Colin Pritchard, Fuki Hisama, Gail Jarvik, Alessandro Fichera, Britta Sjoding, Robin L Bennett and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Which Lynch syndrome screening programs could be implemented in the "real world"? A systematic review of economic evaluations.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Stacey A CohenDivision of Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Mercy LaurinoDivision of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Deborah J BowenDepartment of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Melissa P UptonDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Colin PritchardDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Fuki HisamaDivision of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Gail JarvikDivision of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Alessandro FicheraDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Britta SjodingGenetic Counseling, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington.
Robin L BennettDivision of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Lorraine NaylorDivision of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Angela JacobsonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Wylie BurkeDepartment of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
William M GradyClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
University of Washington · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USSeattle Cancer Care Alliance · USUniversity of Washington Medical Center · US

Funding

Translational Bioimaging Core Shared ResourceP30CA015704 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Marian Esvelt · 1985 to 2026
$296.4M
TRAINING IN CANCER BIOLOGY &TRANSPLANTATIONT32CA009515 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI NANCY ELLEN DAVIDSON, Effie W Petersdorf · 1985 to 2026
$16.2M
Clinical sequencing in cancer: Clinical ethical and technological studiesU01HG006507 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JARVIK, GAIL PAIRITZ · 2012 to 2016
$10.6M
Identify and validate novel epigenetic molecular markers for colorectal neoplasmU01CA152756 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI GRADY, WILLIAM MALLORY, GUDA, KISHORE · 2010 to 2021
$6.7M
(PQC1) Accelerated biological aging and colon polyp to cancer progressionR01CA194663 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI GRADY, WILLIAM MALLORY · 2015 to 2018
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS 5T32-CA009515-28/29NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015704NCI NIH HHS P30CA15704NCI NIH HHS R01 CA194663NCI NIH HHS R01CA194663NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009515NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152756NCI NIH HHS U01CA152756NHGRI NIH HHS 5U01HG006507NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006507
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLynch syndrome confers a hereditary predisposition to colorectal and other cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) for Lynch syndrome is recommended by several professional societies, but the implementation can be complex. This article describes the evaluation, process development, and initiation of Lynch syndrome UTS at a tertiary referral cancer center.

methodsA multidisciplinary team developed the new process design. Issues in 5 themes were noted: timing, funding, second-opinion patients, result processing, and the role of genetics providers. A committee approach was used to examine each issue for process-improvement development.

resultsThe issues related to testing were addressed individually for the successful implementation of UTS at the institutional level. In the conventional-care period, 9 of 30 cases (30%) received Lynch syndrome screening, and 4 cases were referred to medical genetics. During the 6 months following the implementation of UTS, 32 of 44 patients (73%) received Lynch syndrome screening. The 13 unscreened patients all had identified reasons for nonscreening (eg, financial limitations). Ten patients were referred to medical genetics, which identified no new cases of Lynch syndrome, but a low-risk adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) variant was detected in 1 individual.

conclusionsThe implementation of effective Lynch syndrome UTS can feasibly alter practice at the institutional level. This experience with the assessment and management of issues relevant to the successful implementation of a new clinical care paradigm based on emerging technology has implications for the uptake of advances across molecular oncology into clinical practice, and this is highly relevant in the current era of rapidly evolving genomic technology.

Indexed as

Pathology, MolecularAdultAgedCancer Care FacilitiesColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisEarly Detection of CancerFeasibility StudiesFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansMaleMass ScreeningMedical OncologygeneticsgenomicsLynch syndromemicrosatellite instabilitymolecular oncology

Identifiers

PMID26480326
PMCPMC4724321
OpenAlexW2098677207

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.