PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome is associated with inherited germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Genetic testing in high-risk individuals may yield indeterminate results if no mutation is found or if a mutation of unclear pathogenic significance is observed. There are limited data regarding how well patients with Lynch syndrome understand the clinical implications of genetic test results. This study examines colorectal cancer (CRC) risk perception in individuals tested for MMR mutations and identifies the factors associated with an appropriate interpretation of their cancer risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 159 individuals who met the Revised Bethesda Guidelines and had previously undergone genetic testing completed a questionnaire eliciting demographic data, cancer history, genetic test results, and an estimate of their CRC risk. Associations between clinical factors, genetic test results, and CRC risk perception were explored using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Of the 100 individuals with a pathogenic mutation (true positive), 90 (90%) correctly estimated their CRC risk as "high" or "very high" compared with other individuals their age. However, only 23 (62%) of 37 individuals with an indeterminate genetic test result correctly estimated their risk. Individuals with a history of Lynch syndrome-associated cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.1; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.6) or indeterminate genetic test results (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.6) were significantly less likely to estimate their CRC risk as increased. CONCLUSION: Patients at risk for Lynch syndrome with an indeterminate genetic test result may be falsely reassured. It is important that health care providers continue to discuss the implications of uninformative results on lifetime cancer risk.
PURPOSE:Lynch syndrome is associated with inherited germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Genetic testing in high-risk individuals may yield indeterminate results if no mutation is found or if a mutation of unclear pathogenic significance is observed. There are limited data regarding how well patients with Lynch syndrome understand the clinical implications of genetic test results. This study examines colorectal cancer (CRC) risk perception in individuals tested for MMR mutations and identifies the factors associated with an appropriate interpretation of their cancer risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 159 individuals who met the Revised Bethesda Guidelines and had previously undergone genetic testing completed a questionnaire eliciting demographic data, cancer history, genetic test results, and an estimate of their CRC risk. Associations between clinical factors, genetic test results, and CRC risk perception were explored using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Of the 100 individuals with a pathogenic mutation (true positive), 90 (90%) correctly estimated their CRC risk as "high" or "very high" compared with other individuals their age. However, only 23 (62%) of 37 individuals with an indeterminate genetic test result correctly estimated their risk. Individuals with a history of Lynch syndrome-associated cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.1; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.6) or indeterminate genetic test results (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.6) were significantly less likely to estimate their CRC risk as increased. CONCLUSION:Patients at risk for Lynch syndrome with an indeterminate genetic test result may be falsely reassured. It is important that health care providers continue to discuss the implications of uninformative results on lifetime cancer risk.
Authors: Elena M Stoffel; Beth Ford; Rowena C Mercado; Darashana Punglia; Wendy Kohlmann; Peggy Conrad; Amie Blanco; Kristen M Shannon; Mark Powell; Stephen B Gruber; Jonathan Terdiman; Daniel C Chung; Sapna Syngal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jeffrey R Botkin; Ken R Smith; Robert T Croyle; Bonnie J Baty; Jean E Wylie; Debra Dutson; Anna Chan; Heidi A Hamann; Caryn Lerman; Jamie McDonald; Vickie Venne; John H Ward; Elaine Lyon Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2003-04-30 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: H J Järvinen; M Aarnio; H Mustonen; K Aktan-Collan; L A Aaltonen; P Peltomäki; A De La Chapelle; J P Mecklin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Asad Umar; C Richard Boland; Jonathan P Terdiman; Sapna Syngal; Albert de la Chapelle; Josef Rüschoff; Richard Fishel; Noralane M Lindor; Lawrence J Burgart; Richard Hamelin; Stanley R Hamilton; Robert A Hiatt; Jeremy Jass; Annika Lindblom; Henry T Lynch; Païvi Peltomaki; Scott D Ramsey; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Hans F A Vasen; Ernest T Hawk; J Carl Barrett; Andrew N Freedman; Sudhir Srivastava Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-02-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Susan T Tinley; Julia Houfek; Patrice Watson; Lari Wenzel; Mary Beth Clark; Susan Coughlin; Henry T Lynch Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Lior H Katz; Shailesh Advani; Allison M Burton-Chase; Bryan Fellman; Katrina M Polivka; Ying Yuan; Patrick M Lynch; Susan K Peterson Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Paul J Limburg; William S Harmsen; Helen H Chen; Steven Gallinger; Robert W Haile; John A Baron; Graham Casey; Michael O Woods; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane M Lindor Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-11-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: A M Burton-Chase; S R Hovick; C C Sun; S Boyd-Rogers; P M Lynch; K H Lu; S K Peterson Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Kristin Clift; Sarah Macklin; Colin Halverson; Jennifer B McCormick; Abd Moain Abu Dabrh; Stephanie Hines Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2019-08-20
Authors: Lisa G Aspinwall; Jennifer M Taber; Wendy Kohlmann; Samantha L Leaf; Sancy A Leachman Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 2.537