Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35767976›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2022

Underutilization of Guideline-Recommended Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability Biomarker Testing in Advanced Colorectal Cancer.

David J Papke, Neal I Lindeman, Deborah Schrag, J Bryan Iorgulescu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Molecular imaging and biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Young-onset colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023
    Review
  4. 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.

David J PapkeDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0001-7746-3546
Neal I LindemanDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-7092-6859
Deborah SchragDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-4334-5717
J Bryan IorgulescuDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0003-1405-3667

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Training Program in Nervous System TumorsK12CA090354 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI PLOTKIN, SCOTT R · 2001 to 2025
$16.3M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA090354NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2017, DNA mismatch repair/microsatellite instability (MMR/MSI) testing was nationally recommended for advanced colorectal cancers based on favorable immune checkpoint inhibitor responses among patients with MMR-deficient/MSI-high tumors.

methodsPatients ages ≥20-years-old presenting with stage IV colorectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database. 2017 was the latest year with available testing utilization data. Patient, tumor, socioeconomic, and care setting characteristics were evaluated for association with upfront MMR/MSI testing in 2017 using multivariable logistic regression and average adjusted predicted probabilities (%AAP).

resultsAmong 72,830 stage IV colorectal cancers, upfront MMR/MSI testing levels increased from 16.4% in 2010 to 56.4% in 2017. For patients diagnosed in 2017 (i.e., following national recommendations, n = 10,022), testing levels were lower for older patients (Padj < 0.001), and were independent of patients' race/ethnicity and insurance status. Patients from the poorest quartile of households received less testing [49.6%AAP, 99.9% confidence interval (CI) 45.5-53.7] than patients from the 3rd (56.9%AAP, 99.9% CI, 53.3-60.6; Padj < 0.001) or 4th quartiles (57.6%AAP, 99.9% CI, 54.3-60.9; Padj < 0.001). Although testing levels improved most at community programs, they remained lower in 2017 (46.6%AAP, 99.9% CI, 41.0-52.1) compared with academic/NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (62.8%AAP, 99.9% CI, 59.7-65.8; Padj < 0.001).

conclusionsUpfront MMR/MSI testing utilization for patients with advanced colorectal cancer has increased but there is still substantial need for optimization. Testing utilization disproportionately lagged for patients who were older, from the poorest quartile of households, or managed at community cancer programs. IMPACT: Our findings indicate opportunities for improving rates of MMR/MSI testing and reporting, possibly through incorporation into quality control and accreditation metrics.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaColorectal NeoplasmsAdultBiomarkersDNA Mismatch RepairHumansMicrosatellite InstabilityYoung AdultBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID35767976
PMCPMC9444979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.