Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 516

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Population-Based Molecular Detection of Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer

Salovaara, Reijo, Loukola, Anu, Kristo, Paula, Kääriäinen, Helena, Ahtola, Heikki, Eskelinen, Matti, Härkönen, Niilo, Julkunen, Risto, Kangas, Eero, Ojala, Seppo, Tulikoura, Jukka, Valkamo, Erkki, Järvinen, Heikki, Mecklin, Jukka-Pekka, Aaltonen, Lauri A., de la Chapelle, Albert·2000·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cancer morbidity and mortality can be dramatically reduced by colonoscopic screening of individuals with the hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome, creating a need to identify HNPCC. We studied how HNPCC identification should be carried out on a large scale in a sensitive and efficient manner. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Colorectal cancer specimens from consecutive newly diagnosed patients were studied for microsatellite instability (MSI). Germline mutations in the MLH1 and MSH2 genes were searched for in MSI(+) individuals. RESULTS: Among 535 colorectal cancer patients, 66 (12%) were MSI(+). Among these, 18 (3.4% of the total) had disease-causing germline mutations in MLH1 or MSH2. Among these 18 patients, five were less than 50 years old, seven had a previous or synchronous colorectal or endometrial cancer, and 15 had at least one first-degree relative with colorectal or endometrial cancer. Notably, 17 (94%) of 18 patients had at least one of these three features, which were present in 22% of all 535 patients. Combining these data with a previous study of 509 patients, mutation-positive HNPCC accounts for 28 (2.7%) of 1,044 cases of colorectal cancer, predicting a greater than one in 740 incidence of mutation-positive individuals in this population. CONCLUSION: Large-scale molecular screening for HNPCC can be done by the described two-stage procedure of MSI determination followed by mutation analysis. Efficiency can be greatly improved by using three high-risk features to select 22% of all patients for MSI analysis, whereby only 6% need to have mutation analysis. Sensitivity is only slightly impaired by this procedure.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2000.18.11.2193

Cites

37 of 37 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 37 references

Cited by

See all 516

Metadata

Authors
Salovaara, R., Loukola, A., Kristo, P., Kääriäinen, H., Ahtola, H., Eskelinen, M., Härkönen, N., Julkunen, R., Kangas, E., Ojala, S., Tulikoura, J., Valkamo, E., Järvinen, H., Mecklin, J.-P., Aaltonen, L. A., & de la Chapelle, A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2000-06-11
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
2193-2200
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1907599506
Cited by
516
References
37
FWCI
22.44
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: Population-Based Molecular Detection of Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2000.18.11.2193
The paper
Salovaara, R., Loukola, A., Kristo, P., Kääriäinen, H., Ahtola, H., Eskelinen, M., Härkönen, N., Julkunen, R., Kangas, E., Ojala, S., Tulikoura, J., Valkamo, E., Järvinen, H., Mecklin, J.-P., Aaltonen, L. A., & de la Chapelle, A. (2000). Population-Based Molecular Detection of Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.11.2193

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.