Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 525

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Accuracy of Revised Bethesda Guidelines, Microsatellite Instability, and Immunohistochemistry for the Identification of Patients With Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer

Piñol, Virgínia·2005·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: The selection of individuals for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) genetic testing is challenging. Recently, the National Cancer Institute outlined a new set of recommendations, the revised Bethesda guidelines, for the identification of individuals with HNPCC who should be tested for microsatellite instability. OBJECTIVE: To establish the most effective and efficient strategy for the detection of MSH2/MLH1 gene carriers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A prospective, multicenter, nationwide study (the EPICOLON study) in 20 hospitals in the general community in Spain of 1222 patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer between November 1, 2000, and October 31, 2001. INTERVENTIONS: Microsatellite instability testing and MSH2/MLH1 immunostaining in all patients regardless of age, personal or family history, and tumor characteristics. Patients whose tumors exhibited microsatellite instability and/or lack of protein expression underwent MSH2/MLH1 germline testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness and efficiency of both microsatellite instability testing and immunostaining, either directly or previous selection of patients according to the revised Bethesda guidelines, were evaluated with respect to the presence of MSH2/MLH1 germline mutations. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-seven patients (23.5%) fulfilled the revised Bethesda guidelines. Ninety-one patients (7.4%) had a mismatch repair deficiency, with tumors exhibiting either microsatellite instability (n = 83) or loss of protein expression (n = 81). Germline testing identified 11 mutations (0.9%) in either MSH2 (7 cases) or MLH1 (4 cases) genes. Strategies based on either microsatellite instability testing or immunostaining previous selection of patients according to the revised Bethesda guidelines were the most effective (sensitivity, 81.8% and 81.8%; specificity, 98.0% and 98.2%; positive predictive value, 27.3% and 29.0%, respectively) to identify MSH2/MLH1 gene carriers. Logistic regression analysis confirmed the revised Bethesda guidelines as the most discriminating set of clinical parameters (odds ratio, 33.3; 95% confidence interval, 4.3-250; P = .001). CONCLUSION: The revised Bethesda guidelines constitute a useful approach to identify patients at risk for HNPCC. In patients fulfilling these criteria, both microsatellite instability testing and immunostaining are equivalent and highly effective strategies to further select those patients who should be tested for MSH2/MLH1 germline mutations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.293.16.1986

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 525

Metadata

Authors
Piñol, V.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2005-04-27
Volume
293
Issue
16
Pages
1986
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2162362353
Cited by
525
References
0
FWCI
24.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accuracy of Revised Bethesda Guidelines, Microsatellite Instability, and Immunohistochemistry for the Identification of Patients With Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.293.16.1986
The paper
Piñol, V. (2005). Accuracy of Revised Bethesda Guidelines, Microsatellite Instability, and Immunohistochemistry for the Identification of Patients With Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.16.1986

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.