Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33679238›Full record

ReviewThe obstetrician & gynaecologist : the journal for continuing professional development from the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists2021

Lynch syndrome for the gynaecologist.

Neil Aj Ryan, Raymond Ft McMahon, Neal C Ramchander, Mourad W Seif, D Gareth Evans, Emma J Crosbie

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The obstetrician & gynaecologist : the journal for continuing professional development from the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A Focused Clinical Review of Lynch Syndrome.Cancer management and research · 2023
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Lynch syndrome for the gynaecologist.The obstetrician & gynaecologist : the journal for continuing professional development from the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists · 2021
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Neil Aj RyanObstetrics and Gynaecology Specialty Registrar and Honorary Clinical Lecturer Centre for Academic Women's Health University of Bristol Bristol UK.
Raymond Ft McMahonConsultant Histopathologist and Emeritus Professor of Medical Education Department of Histopathology Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester Academic Health Science Centre Manchester UK.
Neal C RamchanderFoundation Programme Doctor Division of Cancer Sciences Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health University of Manchester St Mary's Hospital Manchester UK.
Mourad W SeifConsultant Gynaecologist and Honorary Senior Lecturer Division of Gynaecology St Mary's Hospital Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester Academic Health Science Centre Manchester UK.
D Gareth EvansProfessor of Medical Genetics and Cancer Epidemiology and Honorary Consultant in Medical Genetics Division of Evolution and Genomic Medicine University of Manchester St Mary's Hospital Manchester UK.
Emma J CrosbieProfessor of Gynaecology Oncology and Honorary Consultant Gynaecological Oncologist Division of Cancer Sciences Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health University of Manchester St Mary's Hospital Manchester UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0284-8630
University of Manchester · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-CS-012-009Medical Research Council MR/M018431/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key contentLynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant condition closely associated with colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer.Women with Lynch syndrome are at increased risk of both endometrial and ovarian cancer and should be offered personalised counselling regarding family planning, red flag symptoms and risk-reducing strategies.Surveillance for gynaecological cancer in women with Lynch syndrome remains controversial; more robust data are needed to determine its effectiveness.Universal testing for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer is being adopted by centres across Europe and is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; thus, gynaecologists must become familiar with testing strategies and their results.Testing strategies involve risk stratification of cancers based on phenotypical features and definitive germline testing. LEARNING

objectivesTo define the pathogenesis of Lynch syndrome and its associated gynaecological cancers.To understand the testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in women with gynaecological cancer.To learn how best to counsel women with Lynch syndrome regarding gynaecological cancer and risk-reducing strategies to enable informed decision-making. ETHICAL ISSUES: Offering gynaecological surveillance despite a lack of robust evidence for its clinical effectiveness may falsely reassure women and delay risk-reducing hysterectomy.Genetic testing may yield variants of unknown significance with ill-defined clinical implications, which can lead to confusion and anxiety.Genetic testing has implications not only for the individual, but also for the whole family, so expert counselling is crucial.

Indexed as

endometrial cancergenetic predispositionLynch syndromemismatch repairovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID33679238
PMCPMC7898635
OpenAlexW3019807488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.