Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

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 access
Funkhouser, William K., Lubin, Ira M., Monzon, Federico A., Zehnbauer, Barbara A., Evans, James P., Ogino, Shuji, Nowak, Jan A.·2012·The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.11.001

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

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.