Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29596542›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2018

Assessment of Tumor Sequencing as a Replacement for Lynch Syndrome Screening and Current Molecular Tests for Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

Heather Hampel, Rachel Pearlman, Mallory Beightol, Weiqiang Zhao, Daniel Jones, Wendy L Frankel, Paul J Goodfellow, Ahmet Yilmaz, Kristin Miller, Jason Bacher and 8 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 88 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.6field-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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 166 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. A Lynch Syndrome Family With GermlineClinical case reports · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. NovelFrontiers in medicine · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Heather HampelDepartment of Internal Medicine and the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Rachel PearlmanDepartment of Internal Medicine and the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Mallory BeightolDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Weiqiang ZhaoDepartment of Pathology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Daniel JonesDepartment of Pathology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Wendy L FrankelDepartment of Pathology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Paul J GoodfellowDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Ahmet YilmazDepartment of Pathology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Kristin MillerDepartment of Pathology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Jason BacherDepartment of Pathology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Angela JacobsonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Electra PaskettDepartment of Internal Medicine and the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Peter G ShieldsDepartment of Internal Medicine and the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Richard M GoldbergDepartment of Internal Medicine and the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Albert de la ChapelleDepartment of Internal Medicine and the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Brian H ShirtsDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Colin C PritchardDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative Study Group
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USThe Ohio State University · USUniversity of Washington · USWest Virginia University · US

Funding

Translational Therapeutics Research Program (TT)P30CA016058 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Tasleem J Padamsee · 1985 to 2026
$132.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016058
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended and involves up to 6 sequential tests. Somatic gene testing is performed on stage IV CRCs for treatment determination. The diagnostic workup for patients with CRC could be simplified and improved using a single up-front tumor next-generation sequencing test if it has higher sensitivity and specificity than the current screening protocol. Objective: To determine whether up-front tumor sequencing (TS) could replace the current multiple sequential test approach for universal tumor screening for LS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Tumor DNA from 419 consecutive CRC cases undergoing standard universal tumor screening and germline genetic testing when indicated as part of the multicenter, population-based Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative from October 2015 through February 2016 (the prospective cohort) and 46 patients with CRC known to have LS due to a germline mutation in a mismatch repair gene from January 2013 through September 2015 (the validation cohort) underwent blinded TS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity of TS compared with microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for the detection of LS. Results: In the 465 patients, mean age at diagnosis was 59.9 years (range, 20-96 years), and 241 (51.8%) were female. Tumor sequencing identified all 46 known LS cases from the validation cohort and an additional 12 LS cases from the 419-member prospective cohort. Testing with MSI or IHC, followed by BRAF p.V600E testing missed 5 and 6 cases of LS, respectively. Tumor sequencing alone had better sensitivity (100%; 95% CI, 93.8%-100%) than IHC plus BRAF (89.7%; 95% CI, 78.8%-96.1%; P = .04) and MSI plus BRAF (91.4%; 95% CI, 81.0%-97.1%; P = .07). Tumor sequencing had equal specificity (95.3%; 95% CI, 92.6%-97.2%) to IHC plus BRAF (94.6%; 95% CI, 91.9%-96.6%; P > .99) and MSI plus BRAF (94.8%; 95% CI, 92.2%-96.8%; P = .88). Tumor sequencing identified 284 cases with KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF mutations that could affect therapy for stage IV CRC, avoiding another test. Finally, TS identified 8 patients with germline DPYD mutations that confer toxicity to fluorouracil chemotherapy, which could also be useful for treatment selection. Conclusions and Relevance: Up-front TS in CRC is simpler and has superior sensitivity to current multitest approaches to LS screening, while simultaneously providing critical information for treatment selection.

Indexed as

Genes, NeoplasmSequence Analysis, DNAColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisCpG IslandsDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA MethylationDNA Mismatch RepairDNA, NeoplasmEarly Detection of CancerGenetic TestingGerm-Line MutationHumansImmunohistochemistryMicrosatellite InstabilityMismatch Repair Endonuclease PMS2BRAF protein, humanDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA, NeoplasmG-T mismatch-binding proteinMismatch Repair Endonuclease PMS2MLH1 protein, humanMSH2 protein, humanMutL Protein Homolog 1MutS Homolog 2 ProteinPMS2 protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

Identifiers

PMID29596542
PMCPMC5885168
OpenAlexW2794976012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.