BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) and confers increased risk of other cancers. Identification of patients improves morbidity and mortality. Screening tumors for absent mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a recommended approach. Despite guidelines advocating universal screening, significant variation in clinical practice exists. AIMS/ METHODS: A retrospective study of two different IHC-based Lynch syndrome screening protocols at an urban, university hospital was performed. Outcomes from a "selective" screening strategy utilized from August 2007-July 2010 on CRC tumors from patients with high-risk features were compared with a "universal" strategy of screening all CRC tumors from July 2010-August 2013. Positively screened patients were referred for genetic counseling and offered germline testing. RESULTS: A total of 392 patients with CRC were screened: 107 selectively and 285 universally. The prevalence of Lynch syndrome was 3.1 %, with no difference by strategy. There was a trend (p = 0.06) toward fewer universally screened patients agreeing to genetic counseling compared with those selectively screened. Selective criteria failed to identify one of eight cases of Lynch syndrome from the universal group, though the universal strategy screened 166 additional tumors to find this additional patient. CONCLUSIONS: Selective screening for Lynch syndrome has similar outcomes as universal screening in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome, despite screening far fewer patients. In addition, fewer eligible patients in our study agreed to undergo genetic counseling and germline testing than in prior studies. These lower rates may better reflect uptake of these services in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND:Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) and confers increased risk of other cancers. Identification of patients improves morbidity and mortality. Screening tumors for absent mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a recommended approach. Despite guidelines advocating universal screening, significant variation in clinical practice exists. AIMS/ METHODS: A retrospective study of two different IHC-based Lynch syndrome screening protocols at an urban, university hospital was performed. Outcomes from a "selective" screening strategy utilized from August 2007-July 2010 on CRC tumors from patients with high-risk features were compared with a "universal" strategy of screening all CRC tumors from July 2010-August 2013. Positively screened patients were referred for genetic counseling and offered germline testing. RESULTS: A total of 392 patients with CRC were screened: 107 selectively and 285 universally. The prevalence of Lynch syndrome was 3.1 %, with no difference by strategy. There was a trend (p = 0.06) toward fewer universally screened patients agreeing to genetic counseling compared with those selectively screened. Selective criteria failed to identify one of eight cases of Lynch syndrome from the universal group, though the universal strategy screened 166 additional tumors to find this additional patient. CONCLUSIONS: Selective screening for Lynch syndrome has similar outcomes as universal screening in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome, despite screening far fewer patients. In addition, fewer eligible patients in our study agreed to undergo genetic counseling and germline testing than in prior studies. These lower rates may better reflect uptake of these services in clinical practice.
Authors: Randall W Burt; Jamie A Cannon; Donald S David; Dayna S Early; James M Ford; Francis M Giardiello; Amy L Halverson; Stanley R Hamilton; Heather Hampel; Mohammad K Ismail; Kory Jasperson; Jason B Klapman; Audrey J Lazenby; Patrick M Lynch; Robert J Mayer; Reid M Ness; Dawn Provenzale; M Sambasiva Rao; Moshe Shike; Gideon Steinbach; Jonathan P Terdiman; David Weinberg; Mary Dwyer; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Ellen R Gritz; Susan K Peterson; Sally W Vernon; Salma K Marani; Walter F Baile; Beatty G Watts; Christopher I Amos; Marsha L Frazier; Patrick M Lynch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathleen M Schmeler; Henry T Lynch; Lee-may Chen; Mark F Munsell; Pamela T Soliman; Mary Beth Clark; Molly S Daniels; Kristin G White; Stephanie G Boyd-Rogers; Peggy G Conrad; Kathleen Y Yang; Mary M Rubin; Charlotte C Sun; Brian M Slomovitz; David M Gershenson; Karen H Lu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 91.245
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: L A Aaltonen; P Peltomäki; J P Mecklin; H Järvinen; J R Jass; J S Green; H T Lynch; P Watson; G Tallqvist; M Juhola Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1994-04-01 Impact factor: 12.701
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: Elizabeth V Clarke; Kristin R Muessig; Jamilyn Zepp; Jessica E Hunter; Sapna Syngal; Louise S Acheson; Georgia L Wiesner; Susan K Peterson; Kellene M Bergen; Elizabeth Shuster; James V Davis; Jennifer L Schneider; Tia L Kauffman; Marian J Gilmore; Jacob A Reiss; Alan F Rope; Jennifer E Cook; Katrina A B Goddard Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Mujde Z Erten; Luca P Fernandez; Hank K Ng; Wendy C McKinnon; Brandie Heald; Christopher J Koliba; Marc S Greenblatt Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: George Kunnackal John; Vipin Das Villgran; Christine Caufield-Noll; Francis Giardiello Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 2.375