Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29955148›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2018

Assessing colorectal cancer mismatch repair status in the modern era: a survey of current practices and re-evaluation of the role of microsatellite instability testing.

Erika Hissong, Elizabeth P Crowe, Rhonda K Yantiss, Yao-Tseng Chen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Nivolumab Is Effective in Mismatch Repair-Deficient Noncolorectal Cancers: Results From Arm Z1D-A Subprotocol of the NCI-MATCH (EAY131) Study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Erika HissongDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Elizabeth P CroweDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Rhonda K YantissDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Yao-Tseng ChenDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, 10065, USA. ytchen@med.cornell.edu.
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Results of DNA mismatch repair testing are used to detect Lynch syndrome and have prognostic and therapeutic implications among patients with sporadic colorectal carcinomas. Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6) and PCR for microsatellite instability are two established methods for assessing mismatch repair function. Older literature suggested a discordance rate of approximately 5% between these assays, leading some institutions to perform dual testing on all cases. Although universal mismatch repair testing is now recommended by multiple professional organizations, none provide guidelines regarding preferred assays. We surveyed 96 academic and nonacademic institutions to assess Lynch syndrome screening practices and evaluated discordance rates between immunohistochemistry and PCR among 809 colorectal cancers tested in our own institution. Our survey demonstrated no significant differences between academic and nonacademic practices with respect to testing strategies. Eighty six percent performed universal screening, and usually (76%) employed immunohistochemistry on initial biopsy samples. Only 20% employed PCR; these were mostly academic practices that used both immunohistochemistry and PCR (p < 0.01 compared with the nonacademic groups). Loss of MLH1/PMS2 staining was often (90%) followed by either BRAF mutational analysis or MLH1 methylation assays. Only 24% adhered to WHO recommendations to assign histologic grade based on mismatch repair status. We found only 3 cases (0.4%) with discordant immunohistochemistry and PCR results in our own practice: 1 reflected decreased MSH-6 staining in a neoadjuvantly treated microsatellite stable tumor, 1 MLH1-deficient tumor showed diminished MLH1/PMS2 in the tumor compared with internal control, and 1 case reflected an error in the molecular laboratory. Overall, our results showed extremely low discordance between methods assessing mismatch repair status and would suggest immunohistochemistry as the preferred single screening test. PCR can be reserved for cases that show equivocal immunostaining patterns.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisDNA Mismatch RepairDNA Repair EnzymesFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMicrosatellite InstabilityMiddle AgedPolymerase Chain ReactionSurveys and QuestionnairesBiomarkers, TumorDNA Repair Enzymes

Identifiers

PMID29955148
OpenAlexW2809707969

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.