Premium
Improving identification of lynch syndrome patients: A comparison of research data with clinical records
Author(s) -
Tan Yen Y.,
McGaughran Julie,
Ferguson Kaltin,
Walsh Michael D.,
Buchanan Daniel D.,
Young Joanne P.,
Webb Penelope M.,
Obermair Andreas,
Spurdle Amanda B.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
international journal of cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.475
H-Index - 234
eISSN - 1097-0215
pISSN - 0020-7136
DOI - 10.1002/ijc.27978
Subject(s) - lynch syndrome , family history , endometrial cancer , medicine , referral , population , gynecology , oncology , cancer , germline mutation , family medicine , dna mismatch repair , mutation , genetics , biology , colorectal cancer , environmental health , gene
Current evidence suggests poor identification and referral of Lynch syndrome patients. This study evaluated the strategies by which patients with endometrial cancer were referred to genetics services. Data from clinic‐based patients with endometrial cancer enrolled through the Australian National Endometrial Cancer population‐based research study with detailed family history information were analyzed. The Amsterdam II criteria, the revised Bethesda guidelines, and criteria adapted for this study was assessed using personal/family history information. The percentages of patients referred and who could have been referred to genetics services, and the performance of each criterion for identifying possible mismatch‐repair (MMR) gene mutation carriers, based on tumor MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), were determined. Research data indicated that 236/397(59%) of patients with endometrial cancer had family/personal history of cancer, including 14 (4%) who fulfilled Amsterdam II criteria. Family history information was noted in the hospital records for only 61(15%) patients, including 7/14 (50%) of patients meeting Amsterdam criteria, and always less extensively than that recorded in the research setting. Only 13 patients (two meeting Amsterdam criteria) were referred for genetic assessment. Of 58 patients with tumor MMR protein‐IHC loss, the Amsterdam criteria and Bethesda guidelines identified only three and 34% of these possible germline mutation carriers, respectively. Greater sensitivity (60%) was obtained using a single criterion proposed by our study, ≥2 first‐degree or second‐degree relatives reporting Lynch cancers. Hospital records indicate poor recognition of family history. Application of research methods show improved identification and may facilitate appropriate referrals of endometrial cancer patients with possible Lynch syndrome.