Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
CMAJ Open ; 8(4): E637-E642, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33077534

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing in families with hereditary cancer enables identification of people most likely to benefit from intensive screening and preventive measures; however, the uptake of testing in relatives (known as cascade carrier testing) for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes has been shown to be low. Our objective was to report rates of familial testing for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes in a publicly funded hereditary cancer clinic in Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective database review was used to determine testing uptake between 1997 and 2016 for families served by the provincial Hereditary Cancer Program for British Columbia and Yukon. Analyses were conducted for genes associated with syndromes with an increased risk for colorectal cancer, including Lynch syndrome (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and EPCAM) and familial adenomatous polyposis (APC), and for additional moderate- to high-penetrance genes (STK11, TP53, SMAD4, MUTYH, PTEN and CHEK2). Descriptive statistics were used and all analyses were 2-tailed. RESULTS: The study cohort included 245 index patients, with carrier testing performed in 382 relatives. The mean age at family member testing was 41.2 years, and most (61.0%) of the family members who underwent testing were women. The median time between disclosure of index cases and their family member's results was 8.3 months. Among eligible first-degree relatives, 32.6% (268/821) underwent testing in BC. Of 67 cancer diagnoses in family members, most (62.7%) occurred before genetic testing. INTERPRETATION: A substantial proportion of people at risk for hereditary colorectal cancer do not undergo genetic testing. This gap highlights the need to explore barriers to testing and to consider interventions to promote uptake; more aggressive efforts by hereditary cancer programs are needed to reach this highest risk population.


Subject(s)
Adenomatous Polyposis Coli/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/diagnosis , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genetic Testing/statistics & numerical data , Adenomatous Polyposis Coli/genetics , Adult , Aged , British Columbia , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/genetics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Databases, Factual , Family , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Young Adult , Yukon Territory
2.
Cancer Med ; 9(18): 6507-6514, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32700475

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Referrals for Lynch syndrome (LS) assessment have traditionally been based on personal and family medical history. The introduction of universal screening practices has allowed for referrals based on immunohistochemistry tests for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression. This study aims to characterize the effect of universal screening in a publicly funded healthcare system with comparison to patients referred by traditional criteria, from January 2012 to March 2017. METHODS: Patient files from the time of initiation of universal screening from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. Patients were sorted into two groups: (a) universally screened and (b) referred by traditional methods. Mutation detection rates, analysis of traditional testing criteria met, and cascade carrier testing were evaluated. RESULTS: The mutation detection rate of the universal screening group was higher than the traditionally referred group (45/228 (19.7%) vs 50/390 (12.5%), P = .05), though each were able to identify unique patients. An analysis of testing criteria met by each patient showed that half of referred patients from the universal screening group could not meet any traditional testing criteria. CONCLUSION: The implementation of universal screening in a publicly funded system will increase efficiency in detecting patients with LS. The resources available for genetic testing and counseling may be more limited in public systems, thus inclusion of secondary screening with BRAF and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing is key to further optimizing efficiency.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/diagnosis , DNA Mismatch Repair , DNA Mutational Analysis , DNA Repair Enzymes/genetics , Early Detection of Cancer , Genetic Testing , Mutation , National Health Programs , British Columbia/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/economics , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/genetics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , DNA Mutational Analysis/economics , Early Detection of Cancer/economics , Female , Financing, Government , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genetic Testing/economics , Humans , Male , National Health Programs/economics , Predictive Value of Tests , Public Sector , Reproducibility of Results
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...