Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

BRAF screening as a low-cost effective strategy for simplifying HNPCC genetic testing

Open access
Domingo, E, Laiho, P, Ollikainen, M, Pinto, M, Wang, L, French, A J, Westra, J, Frebourg, T, Espín, E, Armengol, M, Hamelin, R, Yamamoto, H, Hofstra, R M W, Seruca, R, Lindblom, A, Peltomäki, P, Thibodeau, S N, Aaltonen, L A, Schwartz, S·2004·Journal of Medical Genetics

Abstract

Background: According to the international criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) diagnostics, cancer patients with a family history or early onset of colorectal tumours showing high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) should receive genetic counselling and be offered testing for germline mutations in DNA repair genes, mainly MLH1 and MSH2. Recently, an oncogenic V600E hotspot mutation within BRAF, a kinase encoding gene from the RAS/RAF/MAPK pathway, has been found to be associated with sporadic MSI-H colon cancer, but its association with HNPCC remains to be further clarified. Methods: BRAF-V600E mutations were analysed by automatic sequencing in colorectal cancers from 206 sporadic cases with MSI-H and 111 HNPCC cases with known germline mutations in MLH1 and MSH2. In addition, 45 HNPCC cases showing abnormal immunostaining for MSH2 were also analysed. Results: The BRAF-V600E hotspot mutation was found in 40% (82/206) of the sporadic MSI-H tumours analysed but in none of the 111 tested HNPCC tumours or in the 45 cases showing abnormal MSH2 immunostaining. Conclusions: Detection of the V600E mutation in a colorectal MSI-H tumour argues against the presence of a germline mutation in either the MLH1 or MSH2 gene. Therefore, screening of these mismatch repair (MMR) genes can be avoided in cases positive for V600E if no other significant evidence, such as fulfilment of the strict Amsterdam criteria, suggests MMR associated HNPCC. In this context, mutation analysis of the BRAF hotspot is a reliable, fast, and low cost strategy which simplifies genetic testing for HNPCC.

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 · 10.1136/jmg.2004.020651

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Domingo, E., Laiho, P., Ollikainen, M., Pinto, M., Wang, L., French, A. J., Westra, J., Frebourg, T., Espín, E., Armengol, M., Hamelin, R., Yamamoto, H., Hofstra, R. M. W., Seruca, R., Lindblom, A., Peltomäki, P., Thibodeau, S. N., Aaltonen, L. A., & Schwartz, S.
Venue
Journal of Medical Genetics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-09
Volume
41
Issue
9
Pages
664-668
ISSN
  • 0022-2593 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-6244
OpenAlex
W2103982179
Cited by
339
References
30
FWCI
13.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: BRAF screening as a low-cost effective strategy for simplifying HNPCC genetic testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jmg.2004.020651
The paper
Domingo, E., Laiho, P., Ollikainen, M., Pinto, M., Wang, L., French, A. J., Westra, J., Frebourg, T., Espín, E., Armengol, M., Hamelin, R., Yamamoto, H., Hofstra, R. M. W., Seruca, R., Lindblom, A., Peltomäki, P., Thibodeau, S. N., Aaltonen, L. A., & Schwartz, S. (2004). BRAF screening as a low-cost effective strategy for simplifying HNPCC genetic testing. Journal of Medical Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2004.020651

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.