Literature DB >> 17916174

Value of database linkage: are patients at risk of familial colorectal cancer being referred for genetic counselling and testing?

C Wong1, P Gibbs, J Johns, I Jones, I Faragher, E Lynch, F Macrae, L Lipton.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unique research opportunities are being created in an era of increasingly sophisticated data collection and data linkage. There are Familial Cancer Clinics (FCC) to counsel patients and families about risk reduction strategies and to carry out genetic testing where appropriate. There is currently no objective evidence as to whether appropriate patients are being referred to the FCC.
METHODS: Using a unique resource, the BIO21:MMIM informatics platform, we were able to link data from a prospective colorectal cancer (CRC) database at four Melbourne hospitals with the FCC database for the 4-year period from 2002 to 2005. We determined the number of patients that, on the basis of at least one risk factor suggestive of hereditary CRC, could have been considered for FCC referral, the number that was referred and the number that attended.
RESULTS: Of the 829 new diagnoses of CRC 228 (27.5%) would potentially have benefited from FCC referral. Of these, 50 persons (21.9%) were referred and 32 (14.0%) attended. The highest referral rates were in young, early-stage CRC patients with a family history and the lowest in late-stage and multiple-polyp patients. Patient sex, language and insurance status did not influence referral or attendance.
CONCLUSION: The database linkage capability provided by MMIM has enabled us to carry out a unique study. The results suggest that the rate of appropriate FCC referral is low, that certain subgroups are at particular risk of non-referral and that many referred patients do not ultimately attend. Interventions that increase referral rates and encourage attendance need to be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17916174     DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2007.01470.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intern Med J        ISSN: 1444-0903            Impact factor:   2.048


  16 in total

1.  Choosing not to undergo predictive genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: expanding our understanding of decliners and declining.

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Heather Niven; Alison Rutstein; Louisa Flander; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-02-14

2.  Barriers to and motivations for physician referral of patients to cancer genetics clinics.

Authors:  Carrie F Prochniak; Lisa J Martin; Erin M Miller; Sara C Knapke
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-08-13       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Who is being referred to cancer genetic counseling? Characteristics of counselees and their referral.

Authors:  E van Riel; S van Dulmen; M G E M Ausems
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-03-17

Review 4.  The evolution of colorectal cancer genetics-Part 1: from discovery to practice.

Authors:  Andrew T Schlussel; Ronald A Gagliano; Susan Seto-Donlon; Faye Eggerding; Timothy Donlon; Jeffrey Berenberg; Henry T Lynch
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2014-10

5.  Perceived versus predicted risks of colorectal cancer and self-reported colonoscopies by members of mismatch repair gene mutation-carrying families who have declined genetic testing.

Authors:  Louisa Flander; Andrew Speirs-Bridge; Alison Rutstein; Heather Niven; Aung Ko Win; Driss Ait Ouakrim; John L Hopper; Finlay Macrae; Louise Keogh; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Quality of cancer family history and referral for genetic counseling and testing among oncology practices: a pilot test of quality measures as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

Authors:  Marie E Wood; Pamela Kadlubek; Trang H Pham; Dana S Wollins; Karen H Lu; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Michael N Neuss; Kevin S Hughes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Evaluation of Breast Cancer Patients with Genetic Risk in a University Hospital: Before and After the Implementation of a Heredofamilial Cancer Unit.

Authors:  Miriam Lobo; Sara López-Tarruella; Soledad Luque; Santiago Lizarraga; Carmen Flores-Sánchez; Oscar Bueno; Jesús Solera; Yolanda Jerez; Ricardo González Del Val; María Isabel Palomero; María Cebollero; Isabel Echavarría; Gabriela Torres; Miguel Martín; Iván Márquez-Rodas
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: Assessment of the perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer regarding benefits and barriers.

Authors:  Jessica Ezzell Hunter; Jamilyn M Zepp; Mari J Gilmore; James V Davis; Elizabeth J Esterberg; Kristin R Muessig; Susan K Peterson; Sapna Syngal; Louise S Acheson; Georgia L Wiesner; Jacob A Reiss; Katrina A B Goddard
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Barriers and motivators for referral of patients with suspected lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Yen Y Tan; Lisa J Fitzgerald
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2014-02-18

10.  Knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of lynch syndrome: a survey of clinicians in australia.

Authors:  Yen Y Tan; Amanda B Spurdle; Andreas Obermair
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2014-05-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.