Observational studyMedicine2016
Observational Study: Familial Relevance and Oncological Significance of Revised Bethesda Guidelines in Colorectal Patients That Have Undergone Curative Resection.
Observational study in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes in Women with Mismatch Repair-Proficient Endometrial Cancer.Genes · 2023Article
- Colorectal Cancer Survivors' Receptivity toward Genomic Testing and Targeted Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs to Prevent Cancer Recurrence.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Alpha-actinin 4 and tumorigenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amsterdam criteria for the hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) exclude most suspect cases of possible hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC). By contrast, revised Bethesda guidelines excessively broaden the disease spectrum. The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the cliniciopathilogical characteristics of patients fulfilling the revised Bethesda guidelines and to review the efficacy and limitations of the revised guidelines.This retrospective study enrolled 3609 patients who underwent curative surgery for primary CRC. Patients were classified into the Bethesda group or the control group according to whether they fulfilled the revised Bethesda guidelines. Patients were further categorized when they fulfilled a minimum of 2 items of the revised guidelines. Individual items were analyzed for deficient mismatch repair (d-MMR).The median follow-up was 82.9 (interquartile range, 72-101) months. Patients in the Bethesda group were younger and had a higher rate of reduced mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression, microsatellite instability, and right colonic involvement (all P < 0.001) than the control group. As a predictor of d-MMR, the revised Bethesda guidelines showed a sensitivity of 63.0% and a specificity of 72.6%. Items 1 and 2, respectively, or the item pair 1 and 2, were independent predictors of d-MMR (all P < 0.001). Patients fulfilling the Bethesda guidelines showed clinicopathological features of HNPCC.The revised Bethesda guidelines appear to be a competent predictor of d-MMR. Specifically, items 1 and 2 are significant predictors of d-MMR and may be relevant to the application of the revised Bethesda guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.