The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relevance, Pathogenesis, and Testing Algorithm for Mismatch Repair–Defective Colorectal Carcinomas
Open accessAbstract
Loss-of-function defects in DNA mismatch repair (MMR), which manifest as high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI), occur in approximately 15% of all colorectal carcinomas (CRCs). This molecular subset of CRC characterizes patients with better stage-specific prognoses who experience no benefit from 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Most MMR-deficient (dMMR) CRCs are sporadic, but 15% to 20% are due to inherited predisposition (Lynch syndrome). High penetrance of CRCs in germline MMR gene mutation carriers emphasizes the importance of accurate diagnosis of Lynch syndrome carriers. Family-based (Amsterdam), patient/family-based (Bethesda), morphology-based, microsatellite-based, and IHC-based screening criteria do not individually detect all germline mutation carriers. These limitations support the use of multiple concurrent tests and the screening of all patients with newly diagnosed CRC. This approach is resource intensive but would increase detection of inherited and de novo germline mutations to guide family screening. Although CRC prognosis and prediction of 5-fluorouracil response are similar in both the Lynch and sporadic dMMR subgroups, these subgroups differ significantly with regard to the implications for family members. We recommend that new CRCs should be classified into sporadic MMR-proficient, sporadic dMMR, or Lynch dMMR subgroups. The concurrent use of MSI testing, MMR protein IHC, and BRAF c.1799T>A mutation analysis would detect almost all dMMR CRCs, would classify 94% of all new CRCs into these MMR subgroups, and would guide secondary molecular testing of the remainder.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Ribic, C. M., Sargent, D. J., Moore, M. J., Thibodeau, S. N., French, A. J., Goldberg, R. M., Hamilton, S. R., Laurent-Puig, P., Gryfe, R., Shepherd, L. E., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022289 · Cited by 2,160
RAF/RAS oncogenes and mismatch-repair status
Rajagopalan, H., Bardelli, A., Lengauer, C., Kinzler, K. W., Vogelstein, B., & Velculescu, V. E. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/418934a · Cited by 1,224
Pathologic Predictors of Microsatellite Instability in Colorectal Cancer
Greenson, J. K., Huang, S.-C., Herron, C., Moreno, V., Bonner, J. D., Tomsho, L. P., Ben-Izhak, O., Cohen, H. I., Trougouboff, P., Bejhar, J., et al. (2009) · American Journal of Surgical Pathology · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e31817ec2b1 · Cited by 286
Cited by
Gatalica, Z., Vranic, S., Xiu, J., Swensen, J., & Reddy, S. (2016) · Familial Cancer · doi:10.1007/s10689-016-9884-6 · Cited by 141
Randrian, V., Evrard, C., & Tougeron, D. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13123063 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Funkhouser, W. K., Lubin, I. M., Monzon, F. A., Zehnbauer, B. A., Evans, J. P., Ogino, S., & Nowak, J. A.
- Venue
- The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 91-103
- ISSN
- 1525-1578 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W31576990
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Relevance, Pathogenesis, and Testing Algorithm for Mismatch Repair–Defective Colorectal Carcinomas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.11.001
- The paper
- Funkhouser, W. K., Lubin, I. M., Monzon, F. A., Zehnbauer, B. A., Evans, J. P., Ogino, S., & Nowak, J. A. (2012). Relevance, Pathogenesis, and Testing Algorithm for Mismatch Repair–Defective Colorectal Carcinomas. The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.11.001
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.