Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27713038›Full record

SynthesisGastroenterology2017

Validation of Recently Proposed Colorectal Cancer Susceptibility Gene Variants in an Analysis of Families and Patients-a Systematic Review.

Peter Broderick, Sara E Dobbins, Daniel Chubb, Ben Kinnersley, Malcolm G Dunlop, Ian Tomlinson, Richard S Houlston

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic ReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Association ofJCO precision oncology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter BroderickDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Sara E DobbinsDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Daniel ChubbDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Ben KinnersleyDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Malcolm G DunlopColon Cancer Genetics Group, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh.
Ian TomlinsonMolecular and Population Genetics Laboratory and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford Centre for Cancer Gene Research, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Richard S HoulstonDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Division of Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. Electronic address: richard.houlston@icr.ac.uk.
Institute of Cancer Research · GBCancer Genetics (United States) · USUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12076Cancer Research UK 15116Cancer Research UK 16459Cancer Research UK 18927Cancer Research UK A12076Cancer Research UK A8362Medical Research Council G1001799Medical Research Council MC_PC_U127527198Medical Research Council MC_U127527198Medical Research Council MR/K018647/1Medical Research Council MR/N01104X/2Wellcome Trust 090532Wellcome Trust 095219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing analysis has accelerated searches for genes associated with risk for colorectal cancer (CRC); germline mutations in NTHL1, RPS20, FANCM, FAN1, TP53, BUB1, BUB3, LRP6, and PTPN12 have been recently proposed to increase CRC risk. We attempted to validate the association between variants in these genes and development of CRC in a systematic review of 11 publications, using sequence data from 863 familial CRC cases and 1604 individuals without CRC (controls). All cases were diagnosed at an age of 55 years or younger and did not carry mutations in an established CRC predisposition gene. We found sufficient evidence for NTHL1 to be considered a CRC predisposition gene-members of 3 unrelated Dutch families were homozygous for inactivating p.Gln90Ter mutations; a Canadian woman with polyposis, CRC, and multiple tumors was reported to be heterozygous for the inactivating NTHL1 p.Gln90Ter/c.709+1G>A mutations; and a man with polyposis was reported to carry p.Gln90Ter/p.Gln287Ter; whereas no inactivating homozygous or compound heterozygous mutations were detected in controls. Variants that disrupted RPS20 were detected in a Finnish family with early-onset CRC (p.Val50SerfsTer23), a 39-year old individual with metachronous CRC (p.Leu61GlufsTer11 mutation), and a 41-year-old individual with CRC (missense p.Val54Leu), but not in controls. We therefore found published evidence to support the association between variants in NTHL1 and RPS20 with CRC, but not of other recently reported CRC susceptibility variants. We urge the research community to adopt rigorous statistical and biological approaches coupled with independent replication before making claims of pathogenicity.

Indexed as

Adenomatous Polyposis ColiColorectal NeoplasmsDeoxyribonuclease (Pyrimidine Dimer)Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGerm-Line MutationHumansRibosomal ProteinsDeoxyribonuclease (Pyrimidine Dimer)NTHL1 protein, humanRibosomal Proteinsribosomal protein S20Colon CancerExome SequencingGermlineInherited

Identifiers

PMID27713038
PMCPMC5860724
OpenAlexW2528480867

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.