Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2013
Underutilization of Lynch syndrome screening in a multisite study of patients with colorectal cancer.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Cross Deanna S, Rahm Alanna Kulchak, Kauffman Tia L, Webster Jennifer, Le Anh Quynh, Spencer Feigelson Heather, Alexander Gwen, Meier Paul, Onitilo Adedayo A, Pawloski Pamala A, Williams Andrew E, Honda Stacey, Daida Yeehwa, McCarty Catherine A, Goddard Katrina A B, CERGEN study team
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine Lynch syndrome screening of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in integrated health-care-delivery organizations.
METHODS: We determined the availability of Lynch syndrome screening criteria and actual Lynch syndrome screening in the medical records of 1,188 patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2009 at seven institutions in the Cancer Research Network.
RESULTS: We found infrequent use of Lynch syndrome screening (41/1,188). Family history was available for 937 of the 1,188 patients (79%). There was sufficient information to assess Lynch syndrome risk using family history-based criteria in 719 of the 937 patients (77%) with family history documentation. In 391 individuals with a family history of a Lynch syndrome-associated cancer, 107 (27%) could not be evaluated due to missing information such as age of cancer onset. Eleven percent of patients who met the Bethesda criteria and 25% of individuals who met the Amsterdam II criteria were screened for Lynch syndrome. Recommended guidelines were adhered to during screening, but no testing method was preferred.
CONCLUSION: The information required for Lynch syndrome screening decisions is routinely collected but seldom used. There is a critical gap between collection of family history and its use to guide Lynch syndrome screening, which may support a case for implementation of universal screening guidelines.
METHODS: We determined the availability of Lynch syndrome screening criteria and actual Lynch syndrome screening in the medical records of 1,188 patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2009 at seven institutions in the Cancer Research Network.
RESULTS: We found infrequent use of Lynch syndrome screening (41/1,188). Family history was available for 937 of the 1,188 patients (79%). There was sufficient information to assess Lynch syndrome risk using family history-based criteria in 719 of the 937 patients (77%) with family history documentation. In 391 individuals with a family history of a Lynch syndrome-associated cancer, 107 (27%) could not be evaluated due to missing information such as age of cancer onset. Eleven percent of patients who met the Bethesda criteria and 25% of individuals who met the Amsterdam II criteria were screened for Lynch syndrome. Recommended guidelines were adhered to during screening, but no testing method was preferred.
CONCLUSION: The information required for Lynch syndrome screening decisions is routinely collected but seldom used. There is a critical gap between collection of family history and its use to guide Lynch syndrome screening, which may support a case for implementation of universal screening guidelines.