ArticleGastro hep advances2024
Colonoscopy and Upper Endoscopy Surveillance in Lynch Syndrome: A Longitudinal Study From a Large Tertiary Healthcare System.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal upper gastrointestinal surveillance strategies for gastric, small bowel and pancreatic cancer detection in Lynch syndrome.Familial cancer · 2026Review
- Adenomas and Beyond: Colonoscopy Surveillance, Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Lynch Syndrome.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colon Cancer (Lynch Syndrome): An Emerging Public Health Concern.Health science reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by pathogenic mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. There are limited data on differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance by MMR genes, and an international consensus on surveillance based on genes is not established. We aimed to evaluate colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) surveillance outcomes and compare CRC surveillance findings by the mutated gene. Methods: One hundred one patients with LS were included and colonoscopy results were compared by MMR mutation. Primary outcomes included the development and recurrence of adenoma, CRC, high-grade dysplasia, advanced adenoma, and sessile serrated lesions. Logistic regressions evaluated the relationship between genes and the development or recurrence of primary outcomes. Survival analysis evaluated primary outcomes in patients with ≥ 2 colonoscopies. EGD results were summarized. Results: Three hundred twenty seven colonoscopies were reviewed. Compared to Conclusion: Surveillance colonoscopy outcomes differed in patients with LS and suggest the need to guide surveillance based on MMR gene mutation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.