Antonina I Frolova1, Sheri A Babb1, Emily Zantow1, Andrea R Hagemann1, Matthew A Powell1, Premal H Thaker1, Feng Gao2, David G Mutch3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States. 2. Division of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States. Electronic address: mutchd@wudosis.wustl.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate effects of a Lynch syndrome universal screening protocol in newly diagnosed endometrial cancers on subsequent genetic counseling (GC) and germline testing (GT) referral and acceptance rates. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent a hysterectomy for endometrial cancer at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, MO between 1/1/2011 and 12/31/2013 (n=637). An immunohistochemistry-based (IHC) universal screening protocol for Lynch syndrome was initiated on 12/17/2012. The cohorts consisted of women presenting prior to (Pre-Em-USP; n=395) and those presenting following (Em-USP; n=242) initiation of the universal screening protocol. GC and GT referrals were based on risk factors and/or IHC results. Comparisons were made using the Fisher's exact test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: A greater proportion of individuals in the Em-USP cohort underwent GT than in Pre-Em-USP (9.1% vs 4.8%, p<0.05). Of individuals with an IHC screening result suggestive of LS, those within the Em-USP cohort were significantly more likely to accept GC compared to those in the Pre-Em-USP cohort (95% vs 64%, p=0.02). Specifically within the Em-USP cohort, patients referred to GC due to a concerning IHC screening result, versus those who were referred based on other risk factors, had a higher counseling acceptance rate (95% vs 61%, p=0.03) and underwent genetic testing more readily (76% vs 30%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an IHC-based universal screening protocol for LS in endometrial cancer leads to higher acceptance of genetic counseling and higher rates of genetic testing compared to referral based on risk factors alone.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate effects of a Lynch syndrome universal screening protocol in newly diagnosed endometrial cancers on subsequent genetic counseling (GC) and germline testing (GT) referral and acceptance rates. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent a hysterectomy for endometrial cancer at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, MO between 1/1/2011 and 12/31/2013 (n=637). An immunohistochemistry-based (IHC) universal screening protocol for Lynch syndrome was initiated on 12/17/2012. The cohorts consisted of women presenting prior to (Pre-Em-USP; n=395) and those presenting following (Em-USP; n=242) initiation of the universal screening protocol. GC and GT referrals were based on risk factors and/or IHC results. Comparisons were made using the Fisher's exact test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: A greater proportion of individuals in the Em-USP cohort underwent GT than in Pre-Em-USP (9.1% vs 4.8%, p<0.05). Of individuals with an IHC screening result suggestive of LS, those within the Em-USP cohort were significantly more likely to accept GC compared to those in the Pre-Em-USP cohort (95% vs 64%, p=0.02). Specifically within the Em-USP cohort, patients referred to GC due to a concerning IHC screening result, versus those who were referred based on other risk factors, had a higher counseling acceptance rate (95% vs 61%, p=0.03) and underwent genetic testing more readily (76% vs 30%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an IHC-based universal screening protocol for LS in endometrial cancer leads to higher acceptance of genetic counseling and higher rates of genetic testing compared to referral based on risk factors alone.
Authors: Heather Hampel; Wendy Frankel; Jenny Panescu; Janet Lockman; Kaisa Sotamaa; Daniel Fix; Ilene Comeras; Jennifer La Jeunesse; Hidewaki Nakagawa; Judith A Westman; Thomas W Prior; Mark Clendenning; Pamela Penzone; Janet Lombardi; Patti Dunn; David E Cohn; Larry Copeland; Lynne Eaton; Jeffrey Fowler; George Lewandowski; Luis Vaccarello; Jeffrey Bell; Gary Reid; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Karen H Lu; Mai Dinh; Wendy Kohlmann; Patrice Watson; Jane Green; Sapna Syngal; Prathap Bandipalliam; Lee-May Chen; Brian Allen; Peggy Conrad; Jonathan Terdiman; Charlotte Sun; Molly Daniels; Thomas Burke; David M Gershenson; Henry Lynch; Patrick Lynch; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 7.661
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: Jessica Moline; Haider Mahdi; Bin Yang; Charles Biscotti; Andres A Roma; Brandie Heald; Peter G Rose; Chad Michener; Charis Eng Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: María Rodríguez-Soler; Lucía Pérez-Carbonell; Carla Guarinos; Pedro Zapater; Adela Castillejo; Victor M Barberá; Miriam Juárez; Xavier Bessa; Rosa M Xicola; Juan Clofent; Luis Bujanda; Francesc Balaguer; Josep-Maria Reñé; Luisa de-Castro; José C Marín-Gabriel; Angel Lanas; Joaquín Cubiella; David Nicolás-Pérez; Alejandro Brea-Fernández; Sergi Castellví-Bel; Cristina Alenda; Clara Ruiz-Ponte; Angel Carracedo; Antoni Castells; Montserrat Andreu; Xavier Llor; José L Soto; Artemio Payá; Rodrigo Jover Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Rowena C Mercado; Heather Hampel; Fay Kastrinos; Ewout Steyerberg; Judith Balmana; Elena Stoffel; David E Cohn; Floor J Backes; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins; Noralane M Lindor; Graham Casey; Robert Haile; Subha Madhavan; Albert de la Chapelle; Sapna Syngal Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Charles Muller; Sang Mee Lee; William Barge; Shazia M Siddique; Shivali Berera; Gina Wideroff; Rashmi Tondon; Jeremy Chang; Meaghan Peterson; Jessica Stoll; Bryson W Katona; Daniel A Sussman; Joshua Melson; Sonia S Kupfer Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-08-18 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: D Scott McMeekin; David L Tritchler; David E Cohn; David G Mutch; Heather A Lankes; Melissa A Geller; Matthew A Powell; Floor J Backes; Lisa M Landrum; Richard Zaino; Russell D Broaddus; Nilsa Ramirez; Feng Gao; Shamshad Ali; Kathleen M Darcy; Michael L Pearl; Paul A DiSilvestro; Shashikant B Lele; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Holly L Harper; Jesse K McKenney; Brandie Heald; Andrew Stephenson; Steven C Campbell; Thomas Plesec; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Marilyn Huang; Tegan Hunter; Lydia A Fein; Johnny Galli; Sophia George; Matthew Schlumbrecht; Kelly McCarter; Abdulrahman K Sinno; Luiz P Guido; Andre Pinto Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jeanna M McCuaig; Susan Randall Armel; Melanie Care; Alexandra Volenik; Raymond H Kim; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 6.639
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