OBJECTIVES: Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome that conveys a high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years. There is limited information about screening compliance in this high-risk group. METHODS: Data about cancer screening behaviors were obtained from subjects recruited through four US cancer genetics clinics. The main outcome was prevalence of appropriate CRC surveillance for LS. RESULTS: A total of 181 individuals had a family history that met the Amsterdam criteria for LS (n=154) and/or had an identified mutation in a mismatch repair (MMR) gene (n=105). Of these 181 individuals, 131 (73%) had appropriate LS surveillance with colonoscopies at least every 2 years for their age >25 years. Of those with inadequate surveillance, 26/49 (53%) had colonoscopies at 3- to 5-year intervals. There were no significant differences in health-care setting, perceived risk of CRC, or compliance with screening for other cancers. Rates of appropriate surveillance were higher among individuals who had been referred for genetic evaluation for LS compared with those who had not (109/136 (80%) vs. 23/45 (51%), respectively, P=0.0004). In multivariate analysis, personal history of CRC (odds ratio (OR) 2.81), having a first-degree relative with CRC at age <50 years (OR 2.61), and having undergone a genetic evaluation (OR 4.62) were associated with appropriate CRC surveillance for LS. CONCLUSIONS: The time between colonoscopic exams in patients with LS is often longer than recommended by current guidelines and may place them at risk for interval cancers. Recognizing clinical features of LS and providing genetic counseling, evaluation, and intensive surveillance may improve cancer prevention for those at the highest risk for CRC.
OBJECTIVES:Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome that conveys a high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years. There is limited information about screening compliance in this high-risk group. METHODS: Data about cancer screening behaviors were obtained from subjects recruited through four US cancer genetics clinics. The main outcome was prevalence of appropriate CRC surveillance for LS. RESULTS: A total of 181 individuals had a family history that met the Amsterdam criteria for LS (n=154) and/or had an identified mutation in a mismatch repair (MMR) gene (n=105). Of these 181 individuals, 131 (73%) had appropriate LS surveillance with colonoscopies at least every 2 years for their age >25 years. Of those with inadequate surveillance, 26/49 (53%) had colonoscopies at 3- to 5-year intervals. There were no significant differences in health-care setting, perceived risk of CRC, or compliance with screening for other cancers. Rates of appropriate surveillance were higher among individuals who had been referred for genetic evaluation for LS compared with those who had not (109/136 (80%) vs. 23/45 (51%), respectively, P=0.0004). In multivariate analysis, personal history of CRC (odds ratio (OR) 2.81), having a first-degree relative with CRC at age <50 years (OR 2.61), and having undergone a genetic evaluation (OR 4.62) were associated with appropriate CRC surveillance for LS. CONCLUSIONS: The time between colonoscopic exams in patients with LS is often longer than recommended by current guidelines and may place them at risk for interval cancers. Recognizing clinical features of LS and providing genetic counseling, evaluation, and intensive surveillance may improve cancer prevention for those at the highest risk for CRC.
Authors: Wouter H de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel; Fokko M Nagengast; Gerrit Griffioen; Fred H Menko; Babs G Taal; Jan H Kleibeuker; Hans F Vasen Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.585
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: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Donald W Hadley; Jean F Jenkins; Eileen Dimond; Maria de Carvalho; Ilan Kirsch; Christina G S Palmer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L H Katz; A M Burton-Chase; S Advani; B Fellman; K M Polivka; Y Yuan; P M Lynch; S K Peterson Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 4.438
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: Akriti Dewanwala; Anu Chittenden; Margery Rosenblatt; Rowena Mercado; Judy E Garber; Sapna Syngal; Elena M Stoffel Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Jan T Lowery; Nora Horick; Anita Y Kinney; Dianne M Finkelstein; Kathleen Garrett; Robert W Haile; Noralane M Lindor; Polly A Newcomb; Robert S Sandler; Carol Burke; Deirdre A Hill; Dennis J Ahnen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Erica A Golemis; Paul Scheet; Tim N Beck; Eward M Scolnick; David J Hunter; Ernest Hawk; Nancy Hopkins Journal: Genes Dev Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 11.361
Authors: Eveline M A Bleiker; Mary Jane Esplen; Bettina Meiser; Helle Vendel Petersen; Andrea Farkas Patenaude Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.375