ArticleJCO precision oncology2025
Comparison of PREMM5 and PREMMplus Risk Assessment Models to Identify Lynch Syndrome.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Colorectal cancers associated with mismatch repair deficiency.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeClinical risk assessment models can identify patients with hereditary cancer susceptibility, but it is unknown how multigene cancer syndrome prediction models compare with syndrome-specific models in assessing risk for individual syndromes such as Lynch syndrome (LS). Our aim was to compare PREMMplus (a 19-gene cancer risk prediction model) with PREMM5 (a LS gene-specific model) for LS identification.
methodsWe analyzed data from two cohorts of patients undergoing germline testing from a commercial laboratory (n = 12,020) and genetics clinic (n = 6,232) with personal and/or family histories of LS-associated cancer. Individual PREMMplus and PREMM5 scores were calculated for all patients. Using a score cutoff of
resultsPREMMplus had higher sensitivity than PREMM5 in the laboratory- (63.7% [95% CI, 57.0 to 70.0]
conclusionBoth PREMM5 and PREMMplus demonstrated high NPVs (>98%) in LS discrimination across all patient cohorts, and both models may be used to identify individuals at risk of LS. The choice of which model to use can be based on the goals of risk assessment and patient population.
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.