ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2021
Analysis of genomic pathogenesis according to the revised Bethesda guidelines and additional criteria.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2021. 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.
- Pan-cancer analysis and oncogenic implications ofJournal of cell communication and signaling · 2025Article
- Article
- Systematic identification of biochemical networks in cancer cells by functional pathway inference analysis.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Structure, activity and function of the lysine methyltransferase SETD5.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- Genomic landscape of colorectal carcinogenesis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAs few genotype-phenotype correlations are available for nonsyndromic hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), we implemented genomic analysis on the basis of the revised Bethesda guideline (RBG) and extended (12 items) to verify possible subtypes.
methodsPatients with sporadic CRC (n = 249) were enrolled, stratified according to the revised Bethesda guidelines (RBG+ and RBG- groups) plus additional criteria. Exome/transcriptome analyses (n = 98) and cell-based functional assays were conducted.
resultsWe detected 469 somatic and 830 germline gene mutations differing significantly between the positive and negative groups, associated with 12 RBG items/additional criteria. Twenty-one genes had significantly higher mutation rates in left, relative to right, colon cancer, while USP40, HCFC1, and HSPG2 mutation rates were higher in rectal than colon cancer. FAT4 mutation rates were lower in early-onset CRC, in contrast to increased rates in microsatellite instability (MSI)-positive tumors, potentially defining an early-onset microsatellite-stable subtype. The mutation rates of COL6A5 and MGAM2 were significantly and SETD5 was assumably, associated CRC pedigree with concurrent gastric cancer (GC). The predicted deleterious/damaging germline variants, SH2D4A rs35647122, was associated with synchronous/metachronous CRC with related tumors, while NUP160 rs381660 and KRTAP27-1 rs2244485 were potentially associated with a GC pedigree and less strictly defined hereditary CRC, respectively. SH2D4A and NUP160 acted as oncogenic facilitators.
conclusionOur limited genomic analysis for RBG and additional items suggested that specific somatic alterations in the respective items may enlighten relevant pathogenesis along with the knowledge of germline mutations. Further validation is needed to indicate appropriate surveillance in suspected individuals.
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.