Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32661327›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2020

Comparisons of screening strategies for identifying Lynch syndrome among patients with MLH1-deficient colorectal cancer.

Binyi Xiao, Jun Luo, E Xie, Lingheng Kong, Jinghua Tang, Dingxin Liu, Linlin Mao, Qiaoqi Sui, Weirong Li, Zhigang Hong and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Binyi Xiao *Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Jun Luo *Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine (ICBM), Chinese Academy of Sciences; Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences; Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Zhejiang, China.
E Xie *Department of General Surgery, the Affiliated Shantou Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong, 515000, China.
Lingheng KongSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Jinghua TangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Dingxin LiuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Linlin MaoGuangzhou Kingmed Diagnostics Group Co., Ltd. Clinical Genome Center, KingMed Center for Clinical Laboratory Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, China.
Qiaoqi SuiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Weirong LiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Zhigang HongSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Zhizhong PanSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China. panzhzh@sysucc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5198-2919
Wu JiangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China. jiangwu@sysucc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1063-3878
Pei-Rong DingSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China. dingpr@sysucc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0796-8175
Sun Yat-sen University · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CNKingmed Diagnostics · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 81871971
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BRAF and MLH1 promoter methylation testings have been proven effective prescreens for Lynch Syndrome. We aimed to compare different screening strategies for Lynch Syndrome in patients with MLH1(-) CRC. Patients with MLH1(-) CRC who had been tested for BRAF mutation and germline variants of DNA mismatch repair genes were included. We compared the sensitivities and specificities for identifying Lynch Syndrome and the cost-effectiveness of four screening approaches that used the following tests as prescreens: BRAF testing, MLH1 methylation testing, MLH1 methylation & BRAF testing, and MLH1 methylation testing & Revised Bethesda Criteria. Of 109 patients included, 23 (21.1%) were Lynch Syndrome patients. BRAF mutation and MLH1 methylation occurred in 6 (5.5%) and 40 (36.7%) patients, respectively. The sensitivity for identifying Lynch syndrome of BRAF testing was 100%, but the specificity was only 7%. MLH1 methylation testing had a lower sensitivity than BRAF testing (97.5% vs 100%), but had a markedly higher specificity (45.3% vs 7%). The combination of the two testings had a slightly higher specificity than MLH1 methylation testing alone (47.7% vs 45.3%). The MLH1 methylation testing approach had a 10% lower cost of identifying MLH1(-) Lynch syndrome carriers per case than universal genetic testing, but it missed 4.5% of patients. BRAF and MLH1 promoter methylation testings as prescreens for Lynch syndrome are less effective in Chinese patients with MLH1(-) CRC than in their Western counterparts. Universal genetic testing could be considered an up-front option for this population.

Indexed as

Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisCosts and Cost AnalysisDNA MethylationFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMaleMiddle AgedMutationMutL Protein Homolog 1Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafBRAF protein, humanMLH1 protein, humanMutL Protein Homolog 1Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

Identifiers

PMID32661327
PMCPMC7575538
OpenAlexW3041769097

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.