G Tranø1, H H Wasmuth, W Sjursen, E Hofsli, L J Vatten. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Hamar Hospital, Sykehuset Innlandet Hospital Trust, Hamar, Norway. gerd.trano@ntnu.no
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The assessment of family history and medical data is crucial in identifying families with Lynch syndrome (LS). Among consecutive colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, we aimed at identifying all patients with a hereditary predisposition, and to study a possible discrepancy with assessments made by the responsible clinicians. METHOD: All consecutively diagnosed patients with CRC from two Norwegian hospitals were included, and information on family history was collected in a detailed interview. We assessed information in medical records, and tumours were examined for LS-associated histopathological features. RESULTS: Among 562 patients, there was no documentation of family history in 388 (69.0%) medical records, and in 174 (31.0%) patients, there was no clinical assessment of the information that was collected on family history. Based on detailed interviews and extended pathological examination, we found that 137 (24.4%) of the 562 patients could be classified as possible LS according to the Revised Bethesda Guidelines (RBG); and that 46 (33.6%) of these patients could be identified by family history alone. CONCLUSION: Family history and relevant information in patient records can identify patients with possible LS. However, clinicians often fail to include information on hereditary factors and to assess relevant data in medical records. Familial CRC is therefore not acknowledged, and genetic counselling is not offered.
OBJECTIVE: The assessment of family history and medical data is crucial in identifying families with Lynch syndrome (LS). Among consecutive colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, we aimed at identifying all patients with a hereditary predisposition, and to study a possible discrepancy with assessments made by the responsible clinicians. METHOD: All consecutively diagnosed patients with CRC from two Norwegian hospitals were included, and information on family history was collected in a detailed interview. We assessed information in medical records, and tumours were examined for LS-associated histopathological features. RESULTS: Among 562 patients, there was no documentation of family history in 388 (69.0%) medical records, and in 174 (31.0%) patients, there was no clinical assessment of the information that was collected on family history. Based on detailed interviews and extended pathological examination, we found that 137 (24.4%) of the 562 patients could be classified as possible LS according to the Revised Bethesda Guidelines (RBG); and that 46 (33.6%) of these patients could be identified by family history alone. CONCLUSION: Family history and relevant information in patient records can identify patients with possible LS. However, clinicians often fail to include information on hereditary factors and to assess relevant data in medical records. Familial CRC is therefore not acknowledged, and genetic counselling is not offered.
Authors: Driss Ait Ouakrim; Alex Boussioutas; Trevor Lockett; Ingrid Winship; Graham G Giles; Louisa B Flander; Louise Keogh; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-10-26
Authors: Daniel D Buchanan; Yen Y Tan; Michael D Walsh; Mark Clendenning; Alexander M Metcalf; Kaltin Ferguson; Sven T Arnold; Bryony A Thompson; Felicity A Lose; Michael T Parsons; Rhiannon J Walters; Sally-Ann Pearson; Margaret Cummings; Martin K Oehler; Penelope B Blomfield; Michael A Quinn; Judy A Kirk; Colin J Stewart; Andreas Obermair; Joanne P Young; Penelope M Webb; Amanda B Spurdle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wenche Sjursen; Bjørn Ivar Haukanes; Eli Marie Grindedal; Harald Aarset; Astrid Stormorken; Lars F Engebretsen; Christoffer Jonsrud; Inga Bjørnevoll; Per Arne Andresen; Sarah Ariansen; Liss Anne S Lavik; Bodil Gilde; Inger Marie Bowitz-Lothe; Lovise Maehle; Pål Møller Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2010-06-28 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Deanna S Cross; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Tia L Kauffman; Jennifer Webster; Anh Quynh Le; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Gwen Alexander; Paul Meier; Adedayo A Onitilo; Pamala A Pawloski; Andrew E Williams; Stacey Honda; Yeehwa Daida; Catherine A McCarty; Katrina A B Goddard Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Hans F A Vasen; Ignacio Blanco; Katja Aktan-Collan; Jessica P Gopie; Angel Alonso; Stefan Aretz; Inge Bernstein; Lucio Bertario; John Burn; Gabriel Capella; Chrystelle Colas; Christoph Engel; Ian M Frayling; Maurizio Genuardi; Karl Heinimann; Frederik J Hes; Shirley V Hodgson; John A Karagiannis; Fiona Lalloo; Annika Lindblom; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Pal Møller; Torben Myrhoj; Fokko M Nagengast; Yann Parc; Maurizio Ponz de Leon; Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Julian R Sampson; Astrid Stormorken; Rolf H Sijmons; Sabine Tejpar; Huw J W Thomas; Nils Rahner; Juul T Wijnen; Heikki Juhani Järvinen; Gabriela Möslein Journal: Gut Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: E Hofsli; W Sjursen; W S Prestvik; J Johansen; M Rye; G Tranø; H H Wasmuth; I Hatlevoll; L Thommesen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 7.640