ArticleBMC cancer2017
Analysis of factors influencing molecular testing at diagnostic of colorectal cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent research progress and clinical status of immunotherapy for colorectal cancer.Journal of advanced research · 2026Review
- Analysis of LINE-1 DNA Methylation in Colorectal Cancer, Precancerous Lesions, and Adjacent Normal Mucosa.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Molecular analysis in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a real-world study from high-volume French centres (CAPANCOBIO study).ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Middle East and North Africa Registry to Characterize Rate of RAS Testing Status in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023Observational
- Assessing Oncologists' Adoption of Biomarker Testing in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Using Real-World Data.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Article
- Clinicopathological characteristics of high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer: A narrative review.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate the current rate of molecular testing prescription (KRAS codons 12/13, BRAF and microsatellite instability (MSI)) in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and to determine which factors influence testing.
methodsAll incident CRC cases in 2010 were identified in the Poitou-Charentes General Cancer Registry. The exhaustive molecular testing performed was accessed in the French molecular genetics platform. Factors influencing prescription were analyzed using logistic regression.
resultsAmong the 1269 CRCs included in the study, KRAS, BRAF and MSI testing accounted for 35.1%, 10.5% and 10.9%, respectively. KRAS testing was carried out in 65.5% of metastatic CRCs, and 26.1% of non-metastatic CRCs. Among metastatic CRCs, age (<60 years), site of primary tumour (left colon) and geographical area of treatment were factors related to KRAS testing. BRAF testing was contemporary to KRAS testing for 92.5% of patients. Factors related to MSI testing were age (<60 years), TNM stage (stage IV) and geographical area of treatment. Among CRC patients under 60 years old, only 37.5% had MSI testing.
conclusionThese results underscore the need to reduce disparities in CRC molecular testing and highlight the limited application of the French guidelines, especially concerning MSI testing.
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.