ReviewPharmacogenomics and personalized medicine2017
Is there evidence that we should screen the general population for Lynch syndrome with genetic testing? A systematic review.
Review in Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' perceptions and practices of informing relatives: a qualitative study within a randomised trial on healthcare-assisted risk disclosure.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Trial
- A paradigm shift in genetic predisposition to colorectal cancer: the impact of germline multigene panel testing on diagnosis and management.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Barriers and facilitators of cancer genetic risk screening at community-based organizations serving Latinas.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Precision Population Medicine in Primary Care: The Sanford Chip Experience.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- The new genomic medicine service and implications for patients .Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2019Review
- An Age-Based Framework for Evaluating Genome-Scale Sequencing Results in Newborn Screening.The Journal of pediatrics · 2019Article
- Genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk perceptions for breast and colorectal cancer: Results from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Is Real-Time ELSI Realistic?AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
- Implementation of a Population-Based Cancer Family History Screening Program for Lynch Syndrome.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe emerging dual imperatives of personalized medicine and technologic advances make population screening for preventable conditions resulting from genetic alterations a realistic possibility. Lynch syndrome is a potential screening target due to its prevalence, penetrance, and the availability of well-established, preventive interventions. However, while population screening may lower incidence of preventable conditions, implementation without evidence may lead to unintentional harms. We examined the literature to determine whether evidence exists that screening for Lynch-associated mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations leads to improved overall survival, cancer-specific survival, or quality of life. Documenting evidence and gaps is critical to implementing genomic approaches in public health and guiding future research. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur 2014-2015 systematic review identified studies comparing screening with no screening in the general population, and controlled studies assessing analytic validity of targeted next-generation sequencing, and benefits or harms of interventions or screening. We conducted meta-analyses for the association between early or more frequent colonoscopies and health outcomes.
resultsTwelve studies met our eligibility criteria. No adequate evidence directly addressed the main question or the harms of screening in the general population. Meta-analyses found relative reductions of 68% for colorectal cancer incidence (relative risk: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.23-0.43, three cohort studies, 590 participants) and 78% for all-cause mortality (relative risk: 0.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.56, three cohort studies, 590 participants) for early or more frequent colonoscopies among family members of people with cancer who also had an associated MMR gene mutation.
conclusionInadequate evidence exists examining harms and benefits of population-based screening for Lynch syndrome. Lack of evidence highlights the need for data that directly compare benefits and harms.
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.