ArticleCancer medicine2020
Evaluating the impact of universal Lynch syndrome screening in a publicly funded healthcare system.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of COVID-19 on Universal Tumor Screening, Referral Rates and Attendance at Cancer Genetic Counseling at a Safety-Net University Hospital.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Canadian consensus for the assessment and testing of Lynch syndrome.Journal of medical genetics · 2025Article
- Parent-of-origin detection and chromosome-scale haplotyping using long-read DNA methylation sequencing and Strand-seq.Cell genomics · 2023Article
- Mismatch Repair Universal Screening of Endometrial Cancers (MUSE) in a Canadian Cohort.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Evaluating the impact of universal Lynch syndrome screening in a publicly funded healthcare system.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeReferrals for Lynch syndrome (LS) assessment have traditionally been based on personal and family medical history. The introduction of universal screening practices has allowed for referrals based on immunohistochemistry tests for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression. This study aims to characterize the effect of universal screening in a publicly funded healthcare system with comparison to patients referred by traditional criteria, from January 2012 to March 2017.
methodsPatient files from the time of initiation of universal screening from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. Patients were sorted into two groups: (a) universally screened and (b) referred by traditional methods. Mutation detection rates, analysis of traditional testing criteria met, and cascade carrier testing were evaluated.
resultsThe mutation detection rate of the universal screening group was higher than the traditionally referred group (45/228 (19.7%) vs 50/390 (12.5%), P = .05), though each were able to identify unique patients. An analysis of testing criteria met by each patient showed that half of referred patients from the universal screening group could not meet any traditional testing criteria.
conclusionThe implementation of universal screening in a publicly funded system will increase efficiency in detecting patients with LS. The resources available for genetic testing and counseling may be more limited in public systems, thus inclusion of secondary screening with BRAF and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing is key to further optimizing efficiency.
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.