Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28260941›Full record

ReviewPharmacogenomics and personalized medicine2017

Is there evidence that we should screen the general population for Lynch syndrome with genetic testing? A systematic review.

Anya E R Prince, R Jean Cadigan, Gail E Henderson, James P Evans, Michael Adams, Emmanuel Coker-Schwimmer, Dolly C Penn, Marcia Van Riper, Giselle Corbie-Smith, Daniel E Jonas

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Is Real-Time ELSI Realistic?AJOB empirical bioethics
    Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anya E R PrinceCenter for Genomics and Society.
R Jean CadiganCenter for Genomics and Society; Department of Social Medicine.
Gail E HendersonCenter for Genomics and Society; Department of Social Medicine.
James P EvansCenter for Genomics and Society; Department of Genetics; Carolina Center for Genome Sciences; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Department of Medicine.
Michael AdamsCenter for Genomics and Society; Department of Genetics.
Emmanuel Coker-SchwimmerCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.
Dolly C PennDepartment of Social Medicine.
Marcia Van RiperCenter for Genomics and Society; School of Nursing, The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Giselle Corbie-SmithCenter for Genomics and Society; Department of Social Medicine; Department of Medicine.
Daniel E JonasCenter for Genomics and Society; Department of Medicine; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.
Genomics (United Kingdom) · GBCecil College · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-gen Exome Sequencing 2U01HG006487 · NHGRI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BERG, JONATHAN S, POWELL, BRADFORD C. · 2012 to 2021
$22.7M
Center for Genomics and SocietyP50HG004488 · NHGRI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HENDERSON, GAIL E · 2007 to 2017
$12.6M
Mentoring in community influences on CVD riskK24HL105493 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CORBIE, GISELLE · 2010 to 2019
$1.5M
NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG004488NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006487NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL105493
6 · The paper itself

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

general populationgenetic screeningLynch syndromesystematic reviewtargeted next-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID28260941
PMCPMC5325104
OpenAlexW2589248687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.