OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to implement a patient-administered checklist designed to identify endometrial cancer patients at elevated risk for Lynch syndrome; measure subsequent genetic counseling and testing; and identify differences between those who attended genetic counseling and those who did not. METHODS: We developed a 4-item yes/no checklist of personal and family history risk factors for Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer and recommended referral for genetic counseling for patients meeting any of the criteria. Retrospective chart review was performed to determine subsequent genetic counseling and testing outcomes over a 15 month period. RESULTS: 6/387 (1.6%) of endometrial cancer patients tested positive for a Lynch syndrome mutation. 4/24 (17%) of endometrial cancer patients who met referral criteria and attended genetic counseling tested positive. 38/70 (55%) of patients who met referral criteria were not seen for genetic counseling. Patients who were diagnosed with endometrial cancer at younger ages, who had primary surgery at our institution, or who met more than one referral criteria were more likely to be seen for genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Endometrial cancer patients who met referral criteria and attended genetic counseling comprised a population enriched for Lynch syndrome. This approach allowed Lynch syndrome evaluation resources to be targeted to a population of patients that is high risk and interested in the information. The referral rate of at-risk patients needs to be improved, and allocating resources towards this goal could increase the identification of Lynch syndrome while avoiding some of the pitfalls of universal screening.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to implement a patient-administered checklist designed to identify endometrial cancerpatients at elevated risk for Lynch syndrome; measure subsequent genetic counseling and testing; and identify differences between those who attended genetic counseling and those who did not. METHODS: We developed a 4-item yes/no checklist of personal and family history risk factors for Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer and recommended referral for genetic counseling for patients meeting any of the criteria. Retrospective chart review was performed to determine subsequent genetic counseling and testing outcomes over a 15 month period. RESULTS: 6/387 (1.6%) of endometrial cancerpatients tested positive for a Lynch syndrome mutation. 4/24 (17%) of endometrial cancerpatients who met referral criteria and attended genetic counseling tested positive. 38/70 (55%) of patients who met referral criteria were not seen for genetic counseling. Patients who were diagnosed with endometrial cancer at younger ages, who had primary surgery at our institution, or who met more than one referral criteria were more likely to be seen for genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS:Endometrial cancerpatients who met referral criteria and attended genetic counseling comprised a population enriched for Lynch syndrome. This approach allowed Lynch syndrome evaluation resources to be targeted to a population of patients that is high risk and interested in the information. The referral rate of at-risk patients needs to be improved, and allocating resources towards this goal could increase the identification of Lynch syndrome while avoiding some of the pitfalls of universal screening.
Authors: Celine H M Leenen; Margot G F van Lier; Helena C van Doorn; Monique E van Leerdam; Sjarlot G Kooi; Judith de Waard; Robert F Hoedemaeker; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Sanne M Hulspas; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Ernst J Kuipers; Anja Wagner; Winand N M Dinjens; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Janice S Kwon; Jenna L Scott; C Blake Gilks; Molly S Daniels; Charlotte C Sun; Karen H Lu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shiyu Zhang; Robert Royer; Song Li; John R McLaughlin; Barry Rosen; Harvey A Risch; Isabel Fan; Linda Bradley; Patricia A Shaw; Steven A Narod Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Laura C Beamer; Marcia L Grant; Carin R Espenschied; Kathleen R Blazer; Heather L Hampel; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Deborah J MacDonald Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Brittany A L Batte; Amanda S Bruegl; Molly S Daniels; Kari L Ring; Katherine M Dempsey; Bojana Djordjevic; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Bryan M Fellman; Karen H Lu; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Petra W C Lee; Angela C Bedard; Setareh Samimi; Vivienne K Beard; Quan Hong; James E J Bedard; Blake Gilks; David F Schaeffer; Robert Wolber; Janice S Kwon; Howard J Lim; Sophie Sun; Kasmintan A Schrader Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 4.452