BACKGROUND: Detection of Lynch syndrome has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality among patients and their family members due to beneficial screening and treatment options. Several institutions have begun to adopt universal rather than risk-stratified screening protocols, but the lack of 100 % compliance rates requires identification of system-level interventions to improve screening practices. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify patient, tumor, and system factors associated with lack of screening and identify system-based interventions to improve Lynch syndrome screening. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: This study is a retrospective analysis of Lynch syndrome screening among colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery in a single healthcare system. PATIENTS: Two hundred and sixty-two patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of Lynch syndrome screening. RESULTS: We identified that 75 % of the total cohort was screened for Lynch syndrome. Of patients under the age of 50, 78 % percent were screened. Lower screening rates were found among patients with complete pathologic tumor response and lower pathologic stage of tumor. Higher screening rates were found at the academic hospital and with colorectal surgeons. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, lower screening rates were associated with community hospital location (OR, 0.22; 95 % CI, 0.08-0.56). LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to different hospital settings. CONCLUSIONS: Several potential system-level interventions were identified to improve screening rates including an emphasis on improved provider communication.
BACKGROUND: Detection of Lynch syndrome has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality among patients and their family members due to beneficial screening and treatment options. Several institutions have begun to adopt universal rather than risk-stratified screening protocols, but the lack of 100 % compliance rates requires identification of system-level interventions to improve screening practices. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify patient, tumor, and system factors associated with lack of screening and identify system-based interventions to improve Lynch syndrome screening. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: This study is a retrospective analysis of Lynch syndrome screening among colorectal cancerpatients undergoing surgery in a single healthcare system. PATIENTS: Two hundred and sixty-two patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of Lynch syndrome screening. RESULTS: We identified that 75 % of the total cohort was screened for Lynch syndrome. Of patients under the age of 50, 78 % percent were screened. Lower screening rates were found among patients with complete pathologic tumor response and lower pathologic stage of tumor. Higher screening rates were found at the academic hospital and with colorectal surgeons. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, lower screening rates were associated with community hospital location (OR, 0.22; 95 % CI, 0.08-0.56). LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to different hospital settings. CONCLUSIONS: Several potential system-level interventions were identified to improve screening rates including an emphasis on improved provider communication.
Authors: Elena M Stoffel; Rowena C Mercado; Wendy Kohlmann; Beth Ford; Shilpa Grover; Peggy Conrad; Amie Blanco; Kristen M Shannon; Mark Powell; Daniel C Chung; Jonathan Terdiman; Stephen B Gruber; Sapna Syngal Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Heather Hampel; Wendy L Frankel; Edward Martin; Mark Arnold; Karamjit Khanduja; Philip Kuebler; Mark Clendenning; Kaisa Sotamaa; Thomas Prior; Judith A Westman; Jenny Panescu; Dan Fix; Janet Lockman; Jennifer LaJeunesse; Ilene Comeras; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-22 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Jinru Shia; David S Klimstra; James R Nitzkorski; Philip S Low; Mithat Gonen; Ron Landmann; Martin R Weiser; Wilbur A Franklin; Franklyn G Prendergast; Linda Murphy; Laura H Tang; Larissa Temple; Jose G Guillem; W Douglas Wong; Philip B Paty Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Cecelia A Bellcross; Sara R Bedrosian; Elvan Daniels; Debra Duquette; Heather Hampel; Kory Jasperson; Djenaba A Joseph; Celia Kaye; Ira Lubin; Laurence J Meyer; Michele Reyes; Maren T Scheuner; Sheri D Schully; Leigha Senter; Sherri L Stewart; Jeanette St Pierre; Judith Westman; Paul Wise; Vincent W Yang; Muin J Khoury Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 8.822
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: Grainne M O'Kane; Éanna Ryan; Terri P McVeigh; Ben Creavin; John Mp Hyland; Diarmuid P O'Donoghue; Denise Keegan; Robert Geraghty; Delia Flannery; Carmel Nolan; Emily Donovan; Brian J Mehigan; Paul McCormick; Cian Muldoon; Michael Farrell; Conor Shields; Niall Mulligan; Michael John Kennedy; Andrew J Green; Desmond C Winter; Padraic MacMathuna; Kieran Sheahan; David J Gallagher Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: George Kunnackal John; Vipin Das Villgran; Christine Caufield-Noll; Francis Giardiello Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 2.375