ArticleFamilial cancer2023
PREMM5 distinguishes sporadic from Lynch syndrome-associated MMR-deficient/MSI-high colorectal cancer.
Article in Familial cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lynch Syndrome in Focus: A Multidisciplinary Review of Cancer Risk, Clinical Management, and Special Populations.Cancers · 2025Review
- Genomics and integrative clinical data machine learning scoring model to ascertain likely Lynch syndrome patients.BJC reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of PREMM5 and PREMMplus Risk Assessment Models to Identify Lynch Syndrome.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Gynecological Insights into Lynch Syndrome-A Comprehensive Review of Cancer Screening and Prevention.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Current algorithms for diagnosing Lynch syndrome (LS) include multistep molecular tumor tests to distinguish LS-associated from sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC), which add cost and complexity to the evaluation. We hypothesized that PREMM5, a clinical LS prediction tool, could be an alternative approach to screen for LS, thereby lessening the need for specialized molecular diagnostics. We reviewed a consecutively ascertained institutional cohort of 1058 CRC patients on whom pathologic and clinical data were available, including prior LS germline testing. Data from MMR-D/MSI-H CRC patients were reviewed and PREMM5 scores were calculated for each individual. Using a PREMM5 score cutoff ≥ 2.5% to characterize the need for germline testing, we determined the rate of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in LS genes in patients with PREMM5 scores ≥ 2.5% versus < 2.5%. Sensitivity and negative predictive values (NPV) of PREMM5 were calculated for all MMR-D/MSI-H CRC patients, and those with MLH1-deficient CRC. MMR IHC and/or MSI results were available on 572/1058 cases. We identified 74/572 (12.9%) cases as MMR-D/MSI-H, of which 28/74 (37.8%) harbored a LS PGV. 11/49 (22.4%) patients with MLH1-deficient CRC harbored a LS PGV. PREMM5 had 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 87.7-100 for any MMR-D/MSI-H; 95% CI: 71.5-100 for MLH1-deficient CRC) and 100% NPV (95% CI: 83.2-100 for any MMR-D/MSI-H; 95% CI: 82.4-100 for MLH1-deficient CRC) for identifying LS PGVs in these cohorts. PREMM5 accurately distinguishes LS- from non-LS-associated MMR-D/MSI-H CRC without additional somatic molecular testing. These findings are particularly relevant for limited-resource settings where advanced molecular diagnostics may be unavailable.
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.