Brittany A L Batte1, Amanda S Bruegl1, Molly S Daniels1, Kari L Ring1, Katherine M Dempsey1, Bojana Djordjevic2, Rajyalakshmi Luthra3, Bryan M Fellman4, Karen H Lu1, Russell R Broaddus5. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Hematopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine factors impacting the uptake of genetic counseling and results of genetic testing following universal tumor testing for Lynch syndrome in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: The study population consisted of two unselected cohorts of endometrial cancer patients, 408 identified retrospectively and 206 identified prospectively. Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair protein expression and/or microsatellite instability analysis was performed on these tumors. MLH1 methylation analysis was performed on tumors with loss of MLH1 protein. Tumor studies were considered suggestive of Lynch Syndrome if they showed immunohistochemical loss of MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2, loss of MLH1 without MLH1 promoter methylation, and/or microsatellite instability. Participants with suggestive tumor studies were contacted and offered genetic counseling and testing. RESULTS: In the retrospective cohort, 11% had tumor studies suggestive of Lynch syndrome, and 42% was seen for genetic counseling. A germline mutation was detected in 40%, and one had a variant of uncertain significance. In the prospective cohort, 8.7% of patients had tumor testing suggestive of Lynch syndrome; 72% were seen for genetic counseling. Germline mutations were found in 40%, and one had a variant of uncertain significance. Common challenges included timing of re-contact, age, perceived lack of relevance, inability to travel and limited insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: There are several barriers to genetic counseling and testing follow-up after universal tumor testing, and uninformative genetic test results present a management challenge. It is important to consider these limitations when implementing an approach to screening endometrial cancer patients for Lynch syndrome.
OBJECTIVE: Determine factors impacting the uptake of genetic counseling and results of genetic testing following universal tumor testing for Lynch syndrome in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: The study population consisted of two unselected cohorts of endometrial cancerpatients, 408 identified retrospectively and 206 identified prospectively. Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair protein expression and/or microsatellite instability analysis was performed on these tumors. MLH1 methylation analysis was performed on tumors with loss of MLH1 protein. Tumor studies were considered suggestive of Lynch Syndrome if they showed immunohistochemical loss of MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2, loss of MLH1 without MLH1 promoter methylation, and/or microsatellite instability. Participants with suggestive tumor studies were contacted and offered genetic counseling and testing. RESULTS: In the retrospective cohort, 11% had tumor studies suggestive of Lynch syndrome, and 42% was seen for genetic counseling. A germline mutation was detected in 40%, and one had a variant of uncertain significance. In the prospective cohort, 8.7% of patients had tumor testing suggestive of Lynch syndrome; 72% were seen for genetic counseling. Germline mutations were found in 40%, and one had a variant of uncertain significance. Common challenges included timing of re-contact, age, perceived lack of relevance, inability to travel and limited insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: There are several barriers to genetic counseling and testing follow-up after universal tumor testing, and uninformative genetic test results present a management challenge. It is important to consider these limitations when implementing an approach to screening endometrial cancerpatients for Lynch syndrome.
Authors: Arjen R Mensenkamp; Ingrid P Vogelaar; Wendy A G van Zelst-Stams; Monique Goossens; Hicham Ouchene; Sandra J B Hendriks-Cornelissen; Michael P Kwint; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Iris D Nagtegaal; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 22.682
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: Jenny N Poynter; Kimberly D Siegmund; Daniel J Weisenberger; Tiffany I Long; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane Lindor; Joanne Young; Mark A Jenkins; John L Hopper; John A Baron; Dan Buchanan; Graham Casey; A Joan Levine; Loïc Le Marchand; Steven Gallinger; Bharati Bapat; John D Potter; Polly A Newcomb; Robert W Haile; Peter W Laird Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Floor J Backes; Marino E Leon; Iouri Ivanov; Adrian Suarez; Wendy L Frankel; Heather Hampel; Jeffrey M Fowler; Larry J Copeland; David M O'Malley; David E Cohn Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Johnathan M Lancaster; C Bethan Powell; Noah D Kauff; Ilana Cass; Lee-May Chen; Karen H Lu; David G Mutch; Andrew Berchuck; Beth Y Karlan; Thomas J Herzog Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Leigha Senter; Mark Clendenning; Kaisa Sotamaa; Heather Hampel; Jane Green; John D Potter; Annika Lindblom; Kristina Lagerstedt; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane M Lindor; Joanne Young; Ingrid Winship; James G Dowty; Darren M White; John L Hopper; Laura Baglietto; Mark A Jenkins; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Molly S Daniels; Diana L Urbauer; Azadeh Zangeneh; Brittany A L Batte; Katherine M Dempsey; Karen H Lu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Shannon N Westin; Robin A Lacour; Diana L Urbauer; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Diane C Bodurka; Karen H Lu; Russell R Broaddus Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-11-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Tomiak; A Samson; N Spector; M Mackey; C Gilpin; E Smith; D Jonker; J Allanson; T Asmis Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Christopher D South; Martha Yearsley; Edward Martin; Mark Arnold; Wendy Frankel; Heather Hampel Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Elena M Stoffel; Pamela B Mangu; Stephen B Gruber; Stanley R Hamilton; Matthew F Kalady; Michelle Wan Yee Lau; Karen H Lu; Nancy Roach; Paul J Limburg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erica M Bednar; Charlotte C Sun; Bethsaida Camacho; John Terrell; Alyssa G Rieber; Lois M Ramondetta; Ralph S Freedman; Karen H Lu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-12-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Antonina I Frolova; Sheri A Babb; Emily Zantow; Andrea R Hagemann; Matthew A Powell; Premal H Thaker; Feng Gao; David G Mutch Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Amanda S Bruegl; Kari L Ring; Molly Daniels; Bryan M Fellman; Diana L Urbauer; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2016-12-13
Authors: Erica M Bednar; Michael T Walsh; Ellen Baker; Kimberly I Muse; Holly D Oakley; Rebekah C Krukenberg; Cara S Dresbold; Sandra B Jenkinson; Amanda L Eppolito; Kelly B Teed; Molly H Klein; Nichole A Morman; Elizabeth C Bowdish; Pauline Russ; Emaline E Wise; Julia N Cooper; Michael W Method; John W Henson; Andrew V Grainger; Banu K Arun; Karen H Lu Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 2.537