MedElevator
Войти в исследования Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2009
Awareness of heredity in colorectal cancer patients is insufficient among clinicians: a Norwegian population-based study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tranø G, Wasmuth H H, Sjursen W, Hofsli E, Vatten L J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The assessment of family history and medical data is crucial in identifying families with Lynch syndrome (LS). Among consecutive colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, we aimed at identifying all patients with a hereditary predisposition, and to study a possible discrepancy with assessments made by the responsible clinicians.
METHOD: All consecutively diagnosed patients with CRC from two Norwegian hospitals were included, and information on family history was collected in a detailed interview. We assessed information in medical records, and tumours were examined for LS-associated histopathological features.
RESULTS: Among 562 patients, there was no documentation of family history in 388 (69.0%) medical records, and in 174 (31.0%) patients, there was no clinical assessment of the information that was collected on family history. Based on detailed interviews and extended pathological examination, we found that 137 (24.4%) of the 562 patients could be classified as possible LS according to the Revised Bethesda Guidelines (RBG); and that 46 (33.6%) of these patients could be identified by family history alone.
CONCLUSION: Family history and relevant information in patient records can identify patients with possible LS. However, clinicians often fail to include information on hereditary factors and to assess relevant data in medical records. Familial CRC is therefore not acknowledged, and genetic counselling is not offered.
METHOD: All consecutively diagnosed patients with CRC from two Norwegian hospitals were included, and information on family history was collected in a detailed interview. We assessed information in medical records, and tumours were examined for LS-associated histopathological features.
RESULTS: Among 562 patients, there was no documentation of family history in 388 (69.0%) medical records, and in 174 (31.0%) patients, there was no clinical assessment of the information that was collected on family history. Based on detailed interviews and extended pathological examination, we found that 137 (24.4%) of the 562 patients could be classified as possible LS according to the Revised Bethesda Guidelines (RBG); and that 46 (33.6%) of these patients could be identified by family history alone.
CONCLUSION: Family history and relevant information in patient records can identify patients with possible LS. However, clinicians often fail to include information on hereditary factors and to assess relevant data in medical records. Familial CRC is therefore not acknowledged, and genetic counselling is not offered.