OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine how many women in an ovarian cancer (OC) study cohort had a family history (FH) recorded in their case notes and whether appropriate action was taken on the basis of that FH. METHODS: This was a review of patient case-note data of women in a randomized controlled trial of follow-up after primary treatment for OC. Available case notes of 114 women recruited at 3 UK gynecologic cancer centers in a 2-year period between January 2006 and 2008 were examined. Case-note entries for the period from first hospital consultation to 2 years after completion of primary treatment were included. Outcome measures were (1) recording of an FH of cancer in the case notes, (2) whether appropriate action had been taken on the basis of the FH in those women with affected relatives, and (3) characterizing insufficient FH records. RESULTS: Family history was not consistently recorded. Although FH was recorded in the majority of women, 14 women had no FH recorded. In 63 women, the FH was recorded as not significant, and in 15 cases, FH information was insufficient to complete a risk assessment. Twenty-two women had significant FH meeting criteria for specialist genetics referral. In 15 of these 22 cases, the relevant history suggestive of hereditary breast cancer and OC (due to BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations) or Lynch syndrome had been documented, but no action was recorded, and its significance was not appreciated. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that training in recognizing relevant FH is needed for clinicians looking after women with OC. Research is necessary to determine the barriers in taking and interpreting an FH and to determine the optimal time for broaching FH issues during a woman's care pathway. This will improve the accuracy of FH recording and ensure families with OC have access to appropriate surveillance and genetic testing.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine how many women in an ovarian cancer (OC) study cohort had a family history (FH) recorded in their case notes and whether appropriate action was taken on the basis of that FH. METHODS: This was a review of patient case-note data of women in a randomized controlled trial of follow-up after primary treatment for OC. Available case notes of 114 women recruited at 3 UK gynecologic cancer centers in a 2-year period between January 2006 and 2008 were examined. Case-note entries for the period from first hospital consultation to 2 years after completion of primary treatment were included. Outcome measures were (1) recording of an FH of cancer in the case notes, (2) whether appropriate action had been taken on the basis of the FH in those women with affected relatives, and (3) characterizing insufficient FH records. RESULTS: Family history was not consistently recorded. Although FH was recorded in the majority of women, 14 women had no FH recorded. In 63 women, the FH was recorded as not significant, and in 15 cases, FH information was insufficient to complete a risk assessment. Twenty-two women had significant FH meeting criteria for specialist genetics referral. In 15 of these 22 cases, the relevant history suggestive of hereditary breast cancer and OC (due to BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations) or Lynch syndrome had been documented, but no action was recorded, and its significance was not appreciated. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that training in recognizing relevant FH is needed for clinicians looking after women with OC. Research is necessary to determine the barriers in taking and interpreting an FH and to determine the optimal time for broaching FH issues during a woman's care pathway. This will improve the accuracy of FH recording and ensure families with OC have access to appropriate surveillance and genetic testing.
Authors: Margot M Koeneman; Arnold-Jan Kruse; Simone J S Sep; Cynthia S Gubbels; Brigitte F M Slangen; Toon van Gorp; Alberto Lopes; Encarna Gomez-Garcia; Roy F P M Kruitwagen Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.375
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: Anne M Mills; Sofia Liou; James M Ford; Jonathan S Berek; Reetesh K Pai; Teri A Longacre Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 6.394