Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2008
Identifying Lynch syndrome: we are all responsible.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Sanchez Julian A, Vogel Jon D, Kalady Matthew F, Bronner Mary P, Skacel Marek, Church James M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The Amsterdam criteria and Bethesda guidelines are used to identify patients with Lynch syndrome. A family history of Lynch syndrome-related cancers or histopathology suggestive of microsatellite instability should prompt responses by the pathologist and clinician. This study evaluated the impact of microsatellite instability pathology findings on Lynch syndrome evaluation by clinicians.
METHODS: Microsatellite unstable tumors were identified from a maintained tissue bank, and MLH1 methylation was determined. Clinical information and management recommendations by the pathologist and clinician were collected from the medical record.
RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with microsatellite unstable colorectal tumors were identified between 2003 and 2006. Thirteen (25 percent) patients were appropriately referred for additional testing, including eight with documented microsatellite instability histology and five based on history alone. Thirty-seven (73 percent) patients with microsatellite unstable tumors were not detected by pathologists or clinicians, and no additional workup for Lynch syndrome was performed. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria and represent potentially missed Lynch syndrome.
CONCLUSIONS: Microsatellite instability-H histology was the driving force for the Lynch syndrome evaluation. Histopathology alone failed to identify all potential Lynch syndrome patients. Omission of an adequate familial risk assessment may lead to missed diagnosis of Lynch syndrome when suspicious histopathology fails to trigger appropriate testing.
METHODS: Microsatellite unstable tumors were identified from a maintained tissue bank, and MLH1 methylation was determined. Clinical information and management recommendations by the pathologist and clinician were collected from the medical record.
RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with microsatellite unstable colorectal tumors were identified between 2003 and 2006. Thirteen (25 percent) patients were appropriately referred for additional testing, including eight with documented microsatellite instability histology and five based on history alone. Thirty-seven (73 percent) patients with microsatellite unstable tumors were not detected by pathologists or clinicians, and no additional workup for Lynch syndrome was performed. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria and represent potentially missed Lynch syndrome.
CONCLUSIONS: Microsatellite instability-H histology was the driving force for the Lynch syndrome evaluation. Histopathology alone failed to identify all potential Lynch syndrome patients. Omission of an adequate familial risk assessment may lead to missed diagnosis of Lynch syndrome when suspicious histopathology fails to trigger appropriate testing.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Adaptor Proteins, Signal TransducingAdenocarcinomaAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisDNA MethylationFalse Negative ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleMicrosatellite InstabilityMiddle AgedMutL Protein Homolog 1Nuclear ProteinsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Promoter Regions, GeneticRetrospective Studies