Literature DB >> 19125126

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives.

.   

Abstract

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group found sufficient evidence to recommend offering genetic testing for Lynch syndrome to individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer to reduce morbidity and mortality in relatives. We found insufficient evidence to recommend a specific genetic testing strategy among the several examined. RATIONALE: Genetic testing to detect Lynch syndrome in individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) is proposed as a strategy to reduce CRC morbidity and mortality in their relatives (see Clinical Considerations section for definition of Lynch syndrome). The EGAPP Working Group (EWG) constructed a chain of evidence that linked genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in patients with newly diagnosed CRC with improved health outcomes in their relatives. We found that assessing patients who have newly diagnosed CRC with a series of genetic tests could lead to the identification of Lynch syndrome. Relatives of patients with Lynch syndrome could then be offered genetic testing, and, where indicated, colorectal, and possibly endometrial, cancer surveillance, with the expectation of improved health outcome. The EWG concluded that there is moderate certainty that such a testing strategy would provide moderate population benefit. ANALYTIC VALIDITY: The EWG found adequate evidence to conclude that the analytic sensitivity and specificity for preliminary and diagnostic tests were high. CLINICAL VALIDITY: After accounting for the specific technologies and numbers of markers used, the EWG found at least adequate evidence to describe the clinical sensitivity and specificity for three preliminary tests, and for four selected testing strategies. These measures of clinical validity varied with each test and each strategy (see Clinical Considerations section). CLINICAL UTILITY: The EWG found adequate evidence for testing uptake rates, adherence to recommended surveillance activities, number of relatives approachable, harms associated with additional follow-up, and effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. This chain of evidence supported the use of genetic testing strategies to reduce morbidity/mortality in relatives with Lynch syndrome. Several genetic testing strategies were potentially effective, but none was clearly superior. The evidence for or against effectiveness of identifying mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations in reducing endometrial cancer morbidity or mortality was inadequate. CONTEXTUAL ISSUES: CRC is a common disease responsible for an estimated 52,000 deaths in the United States in 2007. In about 3% of newly diagnosed CRC, the underlying cause is a mutation in a MMR gene (Lynch syndrome) that can be reliably identified with existing laboratory tests. Relatives inheriting the mutation have a high (about 45% by age 70) risk of developing CRC. Evidence suggests these relatives will often accept testing and increased surveillance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19125126      PMCID: PMC2743612          DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818fa2ff

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  19 in total

1.  Benchmark for evaluating the quality of DNA sequencing: proposal from an international external quality assessment scheme.

Authors:  Simon J Patton; Andrew J Wallace; Rob Elles
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2006-02-02       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal screening of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma gene carriers.

Authors:  H F Vasen; M van Ballegooijen; E Buskens; J K Kleibeuker; B G Taal; G Griffioen; F M Nagengast; F H Menko; P Meera Khan
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1998-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer: the rise and fall of a confusing term.

Authors:  Jeremy R Jass
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  2006 Update of ASCO Recommendations for the Use of Tumor Markers in Gastrointestinal Cancer.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.840

5.  Decrease in mortality in Lynch syndrome families because of surveillance.

Authors:  Andrea E de Jong; Yvonne M C Hendriks; Jan H Kleibeuker; Sybrand Y de Boer; Annemieke Cats; Gerrit Griffioen; Fokko M Nagengast; Frits G Nelis; Matti A Rookus; Hans F A Vasen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Benefits of colonoscopic surveillance and prophylactic colectomy in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer mutations.

Authors:  S Syngal; J C Weeks; D Schrag; J E Garber; K M Kuntz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1998-11-15       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Decision analysis in the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer due to a mismatch repair gene defect.

Authors:  W H de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel; E Buskens; P van Duijvendijk; A Cats; F H Menko; G Griffioen; J F Slors; F M Nagengast; J H Kleibeuker; H F A Vasen
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 8.  EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Glenn E Palomaki; Monica R McClain; Stephanie Melillo; Heather L Hampel; Stephen N Thibodeau
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group.

Authors:  Steven M Teutsch; Linda A Bradley; Glenn E Palomaki; James E Haddow; Margaret Piper; Ned Calonge; W David Dotson; Michael P Douglas; Alfred O Berg
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer).

Authors:  H F A Vasen; G Möslein; A Alonso; I Bernstein; L Bertario; I Blanco; J Burn; G Capella; C Engel; I Frayling; W Friedl; F J Hes; S Hodgson; J-P Mecklin; P Møller; F Nagengast; Y Parc; L Renkonen-Sinisalo; J R Sampson; A Stormorken; J Wijnen
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 6.318

View more
  260 in total

1.  How Can Next-Generation Sequencing (Genomics) Help Us in Treating Colorectal Cancer?

Authors:  Kristen K Ciombor; Sigurdis Haraldsdottir; Richard M Goldberg
Journal:  Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep       Date:  2014-12-01

2.  The revised Bethesda guidelines: extent of utilization in a university hospital medical center with a cancer genetics program.

Authors:  Aparna Mukherjee; Thomas J McGarrity; Francesca Ruggiero; Walter Koltun; Kevin McKenna; Lisa Poritz; Maria J Baker
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 2.857

3.  Can a gastrointestinal pathologist identify microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer with reproducibility and a high degree of specificity?

Authors:  Eli Brazowski; Paul Rozen; Sara Pel; Ziona Samuel; Irit Solar; Guy Rosner
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Identification of individuals at risk for Lynch syndrome using targeted evaluations and genetic testing: National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Colorectal Cancer joint practice guideline.

Authors:  Scott M Weissman; Randall Burt; James Church; Steve Erdman; Heather Hampel; Spring Holter; Kory Jasperson; Matt F Kalady; Joy Larsen Haidle; Henry T Lynch; Selvi Palaniappan; Paul E Wise; Leigha Senter
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Multilevel research and the challenges of implementing genomic medicine.

Authors:  Muin J Khoury; Ralph J Coates; Mary L Fennell; Russell E Glasgow; Maren T Scheuner; Sheri D Schully; Marc S Williams; Steven B Clauser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

6.  Nurses transforming health care using genetics and genomics.

Authors:  Kathleen A Calzone; Ann Cashion; Suzanne Feetham; Jean Jenkins; Cynthia A Prows; Janet K Williams; Shu-Fen Wung
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.250

Review 7.  Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: Genetics and Screening.

Authors:  Lodewijk A A Brosens; G Johan A Offerhaus; Francis M Giardiello
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 2.741

8.  Evaluating the utilization of educational materials in communicating about Lynch syndrome to at-risk relatives.

Authors:  Kristen Dilzell; Kerry Kingham; Kelly Ormond; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Evaluation of clinical criteria for the identification of Lynch syndrome among unselected patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Amanda S Bruegl; Bojana Djordjevic; Brittany Batte; Molly Daniels; Bryan Fellman; Diana Urbauer; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Charlotte Sun; Karen H Lu; Russell R Broaddus
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2014-04-25

10.  Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  A E Anderson; K G Flores; W Boonyasiriwat; A Gammon; W Kohlmann; W C Birmingham; M D Schwartz; J Samadder; K Boucher; A Y Kinney
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.