Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 876

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Feasibility of Screening for Lynch Syndrome Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer

Open access
Hampel, Heather, Frankel, Wendy L., Martin, Edward, Arnold, Mark, Khanduja, Karamjit, Kuebler, Philip, Clendenning, Mark, Sotamaa, Kaisa, Prior, Thomas, Westman, Judith A., Panescu, Jenny, Fix, Dan, Lockman, Janet, LaJeunesse, Jennifer, Comeras, Ilene, de la Chapelle, Albert·2008·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Identifying individuals with Lynch syndrome (LS) is highly beneficial. However, it is unclear whether microsatellite instability (MSI) or immunohistochemistry (IHC) should be used as the screening test and whether screening should target all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) or those in high-risk subgroups. Patients and Methods: MSI testing and IHC for the four mismatch repair proteins was performed on 500 tumors from unselected patients with CRC. If either MSI or IHC was abnormal, complete mutation analysis for the mismatch repair genes was performed. Results: Among the 500 patients, 18 patients (3.6%) had LS. All 18 patients detected with LS (100%) had MSI-high tumors; 17 (94%) of 18 patients with LS were correctly predicted by IHC. Of the 18 probands, only eight patients (44%) were diagnosed at age younger than 50 years, and only 13 patients (72%) met the revised Bethesda guidelines. When these results were added to data on 1,066 previously studied patients, the entire study cohort (N = 1,566) showed an overall prevalence of 44 of 1,566 patients (2.8%; 95% CI, 2.1% to 3.8%) for LS. For each proband, on average, three additional family members carried MMR mutations. Conclusion: One of every 35 patients with CRC has LS, and each has at least three relatives with LS; all of whom can benefit from increased cancer surveillance. For screening, IHC is almost equally sensitive as MSI, but IHC is more readily available and helps to direct gene testing. Limiting tumor analysis to patients who fulfill Bethesda criteria would fail to identify 28% (or one in four) cases of LS.

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.2008.17.5950

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 876

Metadata

Authors
Hampel, H., Frankel, W. L., Martin, E., Arnold, M., Khanduja, K., Kuebler, P., Clendenning, M., Sotamaa, K., Prior, T., Westman, J. A., Panescu, J., Fix, D., Lockman, J., LaJeunesse, J., Comeras, I., & de la Chapelle, A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2008-12-10
Volume
26
Issue
35
Pages
5783-5788
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2145297551
Cited by
876
References
2
FWCI
29.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Feasibility of Screening for Lynch Syndrome Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2008.17.5950
The paper
Hampel, H., Frankel, W. L., Martin, E., Arnold, M., Khanduja, K., Kuebler, P., Clendenning, M., Sotamaa, K., Prior, T., Westman, J. A., Panescu, J., Fix, D., Lockman, J., LaJeunesse, J., Comeras, I., & de la Chapelle, A. (2008). Feasibility of Screening for Lynch Syndrome Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.17.5950

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.