Value of database linkage: are patients at risk of familial colorectal cancer being referred for genetic counselling and testing?

Improving Clinical Registry Data Quality via Linkage With Survival Data From State-Based Population Registries

PURPOSE

Real-world data (RWD) collected on patients treated as part of routine clinical care form the basis of cancer clinical registries. Capturing accurate death data can be challenging, with inaccurate survival data potentially compromising the integrity of registry-based research. Here, we explore the utility of data linkage (DL) to state-based registries to enhance the capture of survival outcomes.

METHODS

We identified consecutive adult patients with brain tumors treated in the state of Victoria from the Brain Tumour Registry Australia: Innovation and Translation (BRAIN) database, who had no recorded date of death and no follow-up within the last 6 months. Full name and date of birth were used to match patients in the BRAIN registry with those in the Victorian Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM) registry. Overall survival (OS) outcomes were compared pre- and post-DL.

RESULTS

Of the 7,346 clinical registry patients, 5,462 (74%) had no date of death and no follow-up recorded within the last 6 months. Of the 5,462 patients, 1,588 (29%) were matched with a date of death in BDM. Factors associated with an increased number of matches were poor prognosis tumors, older age, and social disadvantage. OS was significantly overestimated pre-DL compared with post-DL for the entire cohort (pre- v post-DL: hazard ratio, 1.43; P < .001; median, 29.9 months v 16.7 months) and for most individual tumor types. This finding was present independent of the tumor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

As revealed by linkage with BDM, a high proportion of patients in a brain cancer clinical registry had missing death data, contributed to by informative censoring, inflating OS calculations. DL to pertinent registries on an ongoing basis should be considered to ensure accurate reporting of survival data and interpretation of RWD outcomes.

Leveraging Comprehensive Cancer Registry Data to Enable a Broad Range of Research, Audit and Patient Support Activities

Simple Summary

Registry data has the potential to support a broad range of research, audit and education initiatives. Here, we describe the experience and learnings of a series of large multi-institutional cancer registries that leverage real-world clinical data for a range of purposes, that informs the conduct and output of each registry in a virtuous cycle. Lessons learnt include the need for careful and continuous curation of information being collected, regular database updates, and the need for a continued focus on data quality. As a standalone resource, each registry has supported numerous projects, but linkage with external datasets with patients in common has enhanced the research potential. Multiple projects have linked registry data with matched tissue specimens to support the discovery and valiation of prognostic and predictive markers in the tumour and blood specimens. Registry-based biomarker trials have been successfully supported, generating novel and practice-changing data. Registry-based clinical trials, particularly studies exploring the best use of drug options are now complementing the research conducted in traditional clinical trials. More recent projects supported by the registries include health economic studies, personalised patient education material, and increased consumer engagement, including consumer entered data.

Abstract

Traditional cancer registries have often been siloed efforts, established by single groups with limited objectives. There is the potential for registry data to support a broad range of research, audit and education initiatives. Here, we describe the establishment of a series of comprehensive cancer registries across the spectrum of common solid cancers. The experience and learnings of each registry team as they develop, implement and then use collected data for a range of purposes, that informs the conduct and output of other registries in a virtuous cycle. Each registry is multi-site, multi-disciplinary and aims to collect data of maximal interest and value to a broad range of enquiry, which would be accessible to any researcher with a high-quality proposal. Lessons learnt include the need for careful and continuous curation of data fields, with regular database updates, and the need for a continued focus on data quality. The registry data as a standalone resource has supported numerous projects, but linkage with external datasets with patients in common has enhanced the audit and research potential. Multiple projects have linked registry data with matched tissue specimens to support prognostic and predictive biomarker studies, both validation and discovery. Registry-based biomarker trials have been successfully supported, generating novel and practice-changing data. Registry-based clinical trials, particularly randomised studies exploring the optimal use of available therapy options are now complementing the research conducted in traditional clinical trials. More recent projects supported by the registries include health economic studies, personalised patient education material, and increased consumer engagement, including consumer entered data.

Identifying patients with Lynch syndrome using a universal tumor screening program in an integrated healthcare system

INTRODUCTION

Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal (CRC) and endometrial (EC) cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) of all individuals diagnosed with CRC and EC is recommended to increase identification of LS. Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) implemented a UTS program for LS among individuals newly diagnosed with CRC in January 2016 and EC in November 2016. UTS at KPNW begins with immunohistochemistry (IHC) of tumor tissue to determine loss of mismatch repair proteins associated with LS (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2)., IHC showing loss of MLH1 is followed by reflex testing (automatic testing) to detect the presence of the BRAF V600E variant (in cases of CRC) and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation to rule out likely sporadic cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individuals newly diagnosed with CRC and EC were identified between the initiation of the respective UTS programs and July 2018. Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract patient data related to UTS, including IHC and reflex testing results, date of referrals to the genetics department, and results of germline genetic testing for LS.

RESULTS

313 out of 362 individuals diagnosed with CRC and 61 out of 64 individuals diagnosed with EC who were eligible were screened by IHC for LS. Most (47/52 or 90%, including 46/49 CRC and 1/3 EC) individuals that were not screened by IHC only had a biopsy sample available. Fourteen individuals (3.7% overall, including 13/313 CRC and 1/61 EC) received an abnormal result after reflex testing and were referred for genetic counseling. Of these, 10 individuals (71% overall, including 9/13 CRC and 1/1 EC) underwent germline genetic testing for LS. Five individuals diagnosed with CRC were found to have pathogenic variants. in PMS2 (n = 3), MLH1 (n = 1), and MSH6 (n = 1). No pathogenic variants were identified in individuals diagnosed with EC.

CONCLUSIONS

UTS identified individuals at risk for LS. Most individuals who screened positive for LS had follow-up germline genetic testing for LS. The consistent use of biopsy samples is an opportunity to improve UTS.

Impact of family history risk assessment on surgical decisions and imaging surveillance at breast cancer diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

In June 2013, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published guidance on the management of women with a family history (FH) of breast cancer (BC) and a personal diagnosis of BC. When diagnosed with BC, pressure of timely treatment takes priority and there is potential for a significant FH to be overlooked. This can affect treatment options and follow-up imaging (FUI) surveillance.

METHODS

The practice in our breast unit was compared with the NICE guidance with regard to arranging appropriate FUI and referral to the genetics team for women diagnosed with BC with a FH of BC. Data were obtained retrospectively on 200 women with BC, identified from the breast multidisciplinary team meetings from January to March 2014. Initial audit showed poor compliance with recording of FH. A standardised history taking proforma was produced for clinic use. A re-audit was conducted on a further 200 women between May and July 2016.

RESULTS

In the initial audit, FH was taken in 151 women (76%) compared with 174 women (87%) in the re-audit. Thirty-seven women (25%) were thought to be of moderate risk (MR) or high risk (HR) based on FH in the first audit. Re-audit identified 35 women (20%) with MR or HR FH. Under half (43%) of the women of HR were referred to the genetics team initially; this increased to 70% in the second audit. While almost half (46%) of the women with MR or HR had inappropriate FUI in the initial audit, this fell to 11% in the re-audit.

CONCLUSIONS

A proportion of women diagnosed with BC would fall into the MR or HR categories as defined in the NICE FH guidance. Inadequate recording of FH could result in inadequate FUI surveillance and in some cases missing the opportunity for a genetic referral to assess suitability for gene testing.

Comparing theory and non-theory based implementation approaches to improving referral practices in cancer genetics: a cluster randomised trial protocol

Background

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited, cancer predisposition syndrome associated with an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and other cancer types. Identifying individuals with LS allows access to cancer risk management strategies proven to reduce cancer incidence and improve survival. However, LS is underdiagnosed and genetic referral rates are poor. Improving LS referral is complex, and requires multisystem behaviour change. Although barriers have been identified, evidence-based strategies to facilitate behaviour change are lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of a theory-based implementation approach against a non-theory based approach for improving detection of LS amongst Australian patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

A two-arm parallel cluster randomised trial design will be used to compare two identical, structured implementation approaches, distinguished only by the use of theory to identify barriers and design targeted intervention strategies, to improve LS referral practices in eight large Australian hospital networks. Each hospital network will be randomly allocated to a trial arm, with stratification by state. A trained healthcare professional will lead the following phases at each site: (1) undertake baseline clinical practice audits, (2) form multidisciplinary Implementation Teams, (3) identify target behaviours for practice change, (4) identify barriers to change, (5) generate intervention strategies, (6) support staff to implement interventions and (7) evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention using post-implementation clinical data. The theoretical and non-theoretical components of each trial arm will be distinguished in phases 4–5. Study outcomes include a LS referral process map for each hospital network, with evaluation of the proportion of patients with risk-appropriate completion of the LS referral pathway within 2 months of CRC resection pre and post implementation.

Discussion

This trial will determine the more effective approach for improving the detection of LS amongst patients with CRC, whilst also advancing understanding of the impact of theory-based implementation approaches in complex health systems and the feasibility of training healthcare professionals to use them. Insights gained will guide the development of future interventions to improve LS identification on a larger scale and across different contexts, as well as efforts to address the gap between evidence and practice in the rapidly evolving field of genomic research.

Trial registration

ANZCTR, ACTRN12618001072202. Registered on 27 June 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3457-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of an online family history tool for identifying hereditary and familial colorectal cancer

Identifying a hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome or familial CRC (FCC) in a CRC patient may enable the patient and relatives to enroll in surveillance protocols. As these individuals are insufficiently recognized, we evaluated an online family history tool, consisting of a patient-administered family history questionnaire and an automated genetic referral recommendation, to facilitate the identification of patients with hereditary CRC or FCC. Between 2015 and 2016, all newly diagnosed CRC patients in five Dutch outpatient clinics, were included in a trial with a stepped-wedge design, when first visiting the clinic. Each hospital continued standard procedures for identifying patients at risk (control strategy) and then, after a predetermined period, switched to offering the family history tool to included patients (intervention strategy). After considering the tool-based recommendation, the health care provider could decide on and arrange the referral. Primary outcome was the relative number of CRC patients who received screening or surveillance recommendations for themselves or relatives because of hereditary CRC or FCC, provided by genetic counseling. The intervention effect was evaluated using a logit-linear model. With the tool, 46/489 (9.4%) patients received a screening or surveillance recommendation, compared to 35/292 (12.0%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat-analysis, accounting for time trends and hospital effects, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.58). A family history tool does not necessarily assist in increasing the number of CRC patients and relatives enrolled in screening or surveillance recommendations for hereditary CRC or FCC. Other interventions should be considered.

Using behaviour change and implementation science to address low referral rates in oncology

Background

Patients undergoing surgery for bowel cancer now have a routine screening test to assess their genetic predisposition to this and other cancers (Lynch syndrome). A result indicating a high risk should trigger referral to a genetic clinic for diagnostic testing, information, and management. Appropriate management of Lynch syndrome lowers morbidity and mortality from cancer for patients and their family, but referral rates are low. The aim of this project was to increase referral rates for patients at high risk of Lynch syndrome at two Australian hospitals, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) Implementation approach.

Methods

Multidisciplinary teams at each hospital mapped the referral process and discussed barriers to referral. A 12-month retrospective audit measured baseline referral rates. The validated Influences on Patient Safety Behaviours Questionnaire was administered to evaluate barriers using the TDF. Results were discussed in focus groups and interviews, and interventions co-designed, guided by theory. Continuous monitoring audits assessed change in referral rates.

Results

Teams (n = 8, 11) at each hospital mapped referral processes. Baseline referral rates were 80% (4/5) from 71 screened patients and 8% (1/14) from 113 patients respectively. The questionnaire response rate was 51% (36/71). Most significant barrier domains were: ‘environmental context;’ ‘memory and decision making;’ ‘skills;’ and ‘beliefs about capabilities.’ Focus groups and interviews with 19 healthcare professionals confirmed these domains as significant. Fifteen interventions were proposed considering both emerging and theory-based results. Interventions included: clarification of pathology reports, education, introduction of e-referrals, and inclusion of genetic status in documentation.

Audits continued to December 2016 showing a change in pathology processes which increased the accuracy of screening. The referral rate remained low: 46% at Hospital A and 9% Hospital B. Results suggest patients who have their referral deferred for some reason are not referred later.

Conclusion

Lynch syndrome is typical of low incidence problems likely to overwhelm the system as genomic testing becomes mainstream. It is crucial for health researchers to test methods and define generalizable solutions to address this problem. Whilst our approach did not improve referrals, we have deepened our understanding of barriers to referral and approaches to low frequency conditions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3653-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An online self-test added to colorectal cancer screening can increase the effectiveness of familial cancer risk assessment without increasing distress

AIM

Most people who are at increased familial colorectal cancer (FCRC) risk are not identified, despite the need for enhanced surveillance colonoscopy for effective CRC prevention. An online self-test may enhance this identification. We assessed whether taking an online self-test to identify increased FCRC risk increases anxiety, distress or CRC risk perception in population-based CRC screening.

METHOD

After the precolonoscopy consultation, patients who had a positive immunohistochemical occult faecal blood test (iFOBT+) in population-based CRC screening were invited by email to take an online self-test at home which returned details of family history. Anxiety (STAI-DY), distress (HADS) and CRC risk perception were assessed immediately before and after taking the online self-test and 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

Of 250 participants invited, 177 (71%) completed the online self-test and psychological questionnaires and 153 (61%) completed questionnaires 2 weeks later. The median age was 65 years (range 61-75). The FCRC risk was increased in 17 participants (9.6%). Of these, 12 (6.8%) had a highly increased FCRC risk and may benefit from germline genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. In 7 of 17 participants (40%) the self-test obtained novel information on family history. Anxiety and distress levels were, and remained, below a clinically relevant level. Perception of CRC risk remained unchanged. Most participants (83%) would recommend the online self-test to others.

CONCLUSION

Of those with a iFOBT+, 9.6% had a previously unidentified increasedFCRC risk and require an enhanced surveillance colonoscopy instead of iFOBT. As screening for this risk did not increase anxiety or distress, and was highly acceptable, we recommend adding the online self-test to population-based CRC screening.

Evaluation of Breast Cancer Patients with Genetic Risk in a University Hospital: Before and After the Implementation of a Heredofamilial Cancer Unit

The identification of patients at risk for breast cancer by genetic testing has proven to reduce breast cancer mortality. In 2010, due to a lack of systematization in hereditary cancer assistance in our center, we implemented a multidisciplinary Heredofamilial Cancer Unit (HFCU). We analyze if the HFCU improved the rates of referrals and preventive management of breast cancer patients with genetic risk. We retrospectively compared family history records, referrals of high-risk patients to genetic counseling, and detection and management of patients with BRCA1/2 mutations in two cohorts of breast cancer patients diagnosed before (first period: 2007-2010) and after the creation of the HFCU (second period: 2010-2013). In the first period, 893 patients were included, and 902 were included in the second. Due to the inability to establish their genetic risk, 142 patients (15.9%) vs. 70 (7.8%) were excluded from analysis (p < 0.001). Among the evaluable patients, 194 (25.8%) vs. 223 (26.8%) fulfilled one or more risk criteria (p = 0.65). Family history documentation in patient's medical records (92.4 vs. 97.8%, p < 0.001) and referral rate (26.3 vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) significantly increased in the second period. Eight BRCA1/2 mutations were detected among patients referred in the first period and 17 among those referred to the HFCU. The rate of preventive surgeries in patients with BRCA mutations significantly increased in the second period (25 vs. 76.5%, p = 0.03). In conclusion, there was a clear improvement in family history records, referrals, and preventive surgeries in breast cancer patients with genetic risk after the implementation of the HFCU.

Choosing not to undergo predictive genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: expanding our understanding of decliners and declining

While medical research continues to investigate the genetic basis of cancer, and personalised prevention gains momentum, little research has been conducted with the individuals who decline predictive genetic testing for cancer. We recruited individuals who had been offered genetic testing for Lynch syndrome or bi-allelic MUTYH mutations due to their participation in a large, population-based, Australia-wide colorectal cancer study. Thirty-three individuals in mutation-carrying families, unaffected by cancer, who had actively or passively declined testing at one of four decision-making points, took part in a qualitative interview about their decision. Data analysis revealed a typology of 'decliners': (1) uninformed about genetic testing; (2) a weak intention to undergo genetic testing; (3) conditionally declining; and (4) unconditionally declining testing. In this population we found substantial barriers to achieving the benefits promised by predictive genetic testing; a lack of knowledge of the availability of genetic testing; a lack of trust in genetic test information; a desire to see a stronger benefit from genetic testing before proceeding; and a sense that there may be more negative than positive outcomes from genetic testing. These discourses must be addressed if medical research on the genetic basis of cancer continues to be funded, and personalised prevention of cancer continues to be recommended by experts.

Universal molecular screening does not effectively detect Lynch syndrome in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) due to an inherited damaging mutation in mismatch repair (MMR) genes comprises 3% of all incident colorectal cancer (CRC). Molecular testing using immunohistochemistry (IHC) for MMR proteins is a recommended screening tool to identify LS in incident CRC. This study assessed outcomes of population-based routine molecular screening for diagnosis of LS in a regional center.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, consecutive case series study of universal IHC testing on cases of resected CRC from September 2004-December 2013. Referred cases with abnormal IHC results that attended a familial cancer clinic were assessed according to modified Bethesda criteria (until 2009) or molecular criteria (from 2009).

RESULTS

1612 individuals underwent resection for CRC in the study period and had MMR testing by IHC. Of these, 274 cases (16.9%) exhibited loss of expression of MMR genes. The mean age at CRC diagnosis was 68.1 years (± standard deviation 12.7) and the mean age of those with an IHC abnormality was 71.6 (± 11.8). A total of 82 (29.9%) patients with an abnormal result were seen in a subspecialty familial cancer clinic. Patients aged under 50 (p = 0.009) and those with loss of MSH6 staining (p = 0.027) were more likely to be referred and to attend. After germ-line sequencing, 0.6% (10 of 82) were identified as having a clinically significant abnormality. A further eight probands with pathogenic germ-line mutations were identified from other referrals to the service over the same time period.

CONCLUSIONS

While technically accurate, the yield of 'universal' IHC in detecting new Lynch probands is limited by real-world factors that reduce referrals and genetic testing. We propose an alternative approach for universal, incident case detection of Lynch syndrome with 'one-stop' MMR testing and sequencing.

Achieving behaviour change for detection of Lynch syndrome using the Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome is an inherited disorder associated with a range of cancers, and found in 2-5 % of colorectal cancers. Lynch syndrome is diagnosed through a combination of significant family and clinical history and pathology. The definitive diagnostic germline test requires formal patient consent after genetic counselling. If diagnosed early, carriers of Lynch syndrome can undergo increased surveillance for cancers, which in turn can prevent late stage cancers, optimise treatment and decrease mortality for themselves and their relatives. However, over the past decade, international studies have reported that only a small proportion of individuals with suspected Lynch syndrome were referred for genetic consultation and possible genetic testing. The aim of this project is to use behaviour change theory and implementation science approaches to increase the number and speed of healthcare professional referrals of colorectal cancer patients with a high-likelihood risk of Lynch syndrome to appropriate genetic counselling services.

METHODS

The six-step Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach will be used at two large, metropolitan hospitals treating colorectal cancer patients. Steps are: 1) form local multidisciplinary teams to map current referral processes; 2) identify target behaviours that may lead to increased referrals using discussion supported by a retrospective audit; 3) identify barriers to those behaviours using the validated Influences on Patient Safety Behaviours Questionnaire and TDFI guided focus groups; 4) co-design interventions to address barriers using focus groups; 5) co-implement interventions; and 6) evaluate intervention impact. Chi square analysis will be used to test the difference in the proportion of high-likelihood risk Lynch syndrome patients being referred for genetic testing before and after intervention implementation. A paired t-test will be used to assess the mean time from the pathology test results to referral for high-likelihood Lynch syndrome patients pre-post intervention. Run charts will be used to continuously monitor change in referrals over time, based on scheduled monthly audits.

DISCUSSION

This project is based on a tested and refined implementation strategy (TDFI approach). Enhancing the process of identifying and referring people at high-likelihood risk of Lynch syndrome for genetic counselling will improve outcomes for patients and their relatives, and potentially save public money.

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: Assessment of the perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer regarding benefits and barriers

BACKGROUND

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, the most common form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recommended among all patients newly diagnosed with CRC. However, there is limited literature regarding patient perspectives of tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with CRC who are not selected for screening based on family history criteria.

METHODS

A total of 145 patients aged 39 to 87 years were administered surveys assessing perceived risk, patient perspectives, and potential benefits of and barriers to tumor screening for Lynch syndrome. Associations between patient‐specific and cancer‐specific factors and survey responses were analyzed.

RESULTS

The majority of participants perceived their risk of developing Lynch syndrome as being low, with 9 participants (6.2%) anticipating an abnormal screening result. However, most participants endorsed the potential benefits of screening for themselves and their families, with 84.8% endorsing ≥6 benefits and 50.3% endorsing all 8 benefits. Participants also endorsed few potential barriers to screening, with 89.4% endorsing ≤4 of 9 potential barriers. A common barrier was worry about the cost of additional testing and surveillance, which was endorsed by 54.5% of participants. The level of distress associated with tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, which was very low, was not associated with age or CRC stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study indicate that patients with CRC overall have a positive attitude toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, endorse the benefits of screening, and experience low levels of distress. These findings provide insight into patient attitudes toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among unselected patients with CRC to inform educational approaches that assist in patient decision‐making and guide the successful implementation of screening programs. Cancer 2015;121:3281–3289. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

In the current study, perspectives among patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer are assessed regarding universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome. The majority of patients appear to have a positive attitude toward screening and endorse the benefits for themselves and their families, whereas potential barriers include concerns over the cost of additional genetic counseling and testing.

The evolution of colorectal cancer genetics-Part 1: from discovery to practice

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an increasing burden on our society. Identifying those who are at the greatest risk and improving triage for treatment will have the greatest impact on healthcare. CRC is a prime paradigm for cancer genetics: the majority of disease results from stages of progression lending itself to prevention by early detection of the pre-disease (neoplastic) state. Approximately 10% represent well defined hereditary cancer syndromes. Hereditary CRC has the added benefit that many are slow growing and family members are armed with the knowledge of potential risk of associated carcinomas and empowerment to reduce the disease burden. This knowledge provides the indication for early endoscopic and/or surgical intervention for prevention or treatment of an entire family cohort. The molecular basis of CRC allows enhanced characterization of carcinomas, leading to targeted therapies.

Knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of lynch syndrome: a survey of clinicians in australia

This study assessed Australian clinicians’ knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome for genetic services. A total of 144 oncologists, surgeons, gynaecologists, general practitioners and gastroenterologists from the Australian Medical Association and Clinical Oncology Society responded to a web-based survey. Most respondents demonstrated suboptimal knowledge of Lynch syndrome. Male general practitioners who have been practicing for ≥10 years were less likely to offer genetic referral than specialists, and many clinicians did not recognize that immunohistochemistry testing is not a germline test. Half of all general practitioners did not actually refer patients in the past 12 months, and 30% of them did not feel that their role is to identify patients for genetic referral. The majority of clinicians considered everyone to be responsible for making the initial referral to genetic services, but a small preference was given to oncologists (15%) and general practitioners (13%). Patient information brochures, continuing genetic education programs and referral guidelines were favoured as support for practice. Targeted education interventions should be considered to improve referral. An online family history assessment tool with built-in decision support would be helpful in triaging high-risk individuals for pathology analysis and/or genetic assessment in general practice.

Population-based screening for Lynch syndrome in Western Australia

We showed earlier that routine screening for microsatellite instability (MSI) and loss of mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression in colorectal cancer (CRC) led to the identification of previously unrecognized cases of Lynch syndrome (LS). We report here the results of screening for LS in Western Australia (WA) during 1994-2012. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for loss of MMR protein expression was performed in routine pathology laboratories, while MSI was detected in a reference molecular pathology laboratory. Information on germline mutations in MMR genes was obtained from the state's single familial cancer registry. Prior to the introduction of routine laboratory-based screening, an average of 2-3 cases of LS were diagnosed each year amongst WA CRC patients. Following the implementation of IHC and/or MSI screening for all younger (<60 years) CRC patients, this has increased to an average of 8 LS cases diagnosed annually. Based on our experience in WA, we propose three key elements for successful population-based screening of LS. First, for all younger CRC patients, reflex IHC testing should be carried out in accredited pathology services with ongoing quality control. Second, a state- or region-wide reference laboratory for MSI testing should be established to confirm abnormal or suspicious IHC test results and to exclude sporadic cases by carrying out BRAF mutation or MLH1 methylation testing. Finally, a state or regional LS coordinator is essential to ensure that all appropriate cases identified by laboratory testing are referred to and attend a Familial Cancer Clinic for follow-up and germline testing.

Barriers and motivators for referral of patients with suspected lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services: a qualitative study

This article explores the views of general practitioners and specialists on their referral of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services. Using a purposive maximum variation sampling strategy, we conducted semi-structured interviews face-to-face with 28 general practitioners and specialists in public or private hospitals and specialist clinics between March and August 2011. General practitioners and specialists were recruited in a major metropolitan area in Australia. Interview transcripts were reviewed by two independent researchers, and thematic analysis was performed using NVivo10 software. The main barriers and motivators identified were: (1) clinician-related (e.g., familiarity with Lynch syndrome and family history knowledge); (2) patient-related (e.g., patients’ interests and personal experience with cancer); and (3) organizational-related (e.g., access to services, guidelines and referral pathway). Referral of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services is motivated and hindered by a range of individual, interpersonal and organizational factors. In order to improve the care and quality of life of patients and family with suspected Lynch syndrome, further research is needed to develop supportive tools for clinicians.

Quality of cancer family history and referral for genetic counseling and testing among oncology practices: a pilot test of quality measures as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

PURPOSE

Family history of cancer (CFH) is important for identifying individuals to receive genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT). Prior studies have demonstrated low rates of family history documentation and referral for GC/GT.

METHODS

CFH quality and GC/GT practices for patients with breast (BC) or colon cancer (CRC) were assessed in 271 practices participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative in fall 2011.

RESULTS

A total of 212 practices completed measures regarding CFH and GC/GT practices for 10,466 patients; 77.4% of all medical records reviewed documented presence or absence of CFH in first-degree relatives, and 61.5% of medical records documented presence or absence of CFH in second-degree relatives, with significantly higher documentation for patients with BC compared with CRC. Age at diagnosis was documented for all relatives with cancer in 30.7% of medical records (BC, 45.2%; CRC, 35.4%; P ≤ .001). Referall for GC/GT occurred in 22.1% of all patients with BC or CRC. Of patients with increased risk for hereditary cancer, 52.2% of patients with BC and 26.4% of those with CRC were referred for GC/GT. When genetic testing was performed, consent was documented 77.7% of the time, and discussion of results was documented 78.8% of the time.

CONCLUSION

We identified low rates of complete CFH documentation and low rates of referral for those with BC or CRC meeting guidelines for referral among US oncologists. Documentation and referral were greater for patients with BC compared with CRC. Education and support regarding the importance of accurate CFH and the benefits of proactive high-risk patient management are clearly needed.

Perceived versus predicted risks of colorectal cancer and self-reported colonoscopies by members of mismatch repair gene mutation-carrying families who have declined genetic testing

People carrying germline mutations in mismatch repair genes are at high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), yet about half of people from mutation-carrying families decline genetic counselling and/or testing to identify mutation status. We studied the association of quantitative measures of risk perception, risk prediction and self-reported screening colonoscopy in this elusive yet high-risk group. The sample of 26 participants (mean age 43.1 years, 14 women) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry were relatives of mutation carriers; had not been diagnosed with any cancer at the time of recruitment and had declined an invitation to attend genetic counselling and/or testing. A structured elicitation protocol captured perceived CRC risk over the next 10 years. Self-reported colonoscopy screening was elicited during a 45-minute semi-structured interview. Predicted 10-year CRC risk based on age, gender, known mutation status and family history was calculated using "MMRpro." Mean perceived 10-year risk of CRC was 31 % [95 % CI 21, 40], compared with mean predicted risk of 4 % [2, 7] (p < 0.001); this was independent of age and sex (p = 0.9). Among those reporting any medical advice and any screening colonoscopy (n = 18), those with higher risk perception had less frequent colonoscopy (Pearson's r = 0.49 [0.02, 0.79]). People who decline genetic testing for CRC susceptibility mutations perceive themselves to be at substantially higher risk than they really are. Those with high perceived risk do not undertake screening colonoscopy more often than those who perceive themselves to be at average risk.

Role of microsatellite instability in the management of colorectal cancers

Microsatellite instability is the consequence of a deficient mismatch repair system. It has a key role in the diagnostic strategy of Lynch syndrome, where tumours are all characterized by the presence of this phenotype. Microsatellite instability is therefore essential in the selection of colorectal cancer patients in whom a germline analysis of Mismatch Repair genes is possibly indicated. Moreover, microsatellite instability tumours are associated with a good prognosis and a resistance to fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy, which has a clinical application mainly in stage II colon cancer patients in whom adjuvant chemotherapy has a less beneficial effect than in stage III and outcome in presence of microsatellite instability is excellent. Recent data suggest that impact of microsatellite instability on benefit to fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy is dependent of the molecular mechanism involved in this genetic instability since an improved survival has been reported with adjuvant fluorouracil in microsatellite instability colorectal cancers of germline origin but not in sporadic cases. Predictive value of microsatellite instability on response to fluorouracil/oxaliplatin adjuvant chemotherapy has been less evaluated but recent studies suggest that the favorable outcome of Microsatellite instability tumours is maintained in patients receiving FOLFOX.

Improving identification of lynch syndrome patients: a comparison of research data with clinical records

Current evidence suggests poor identification and referral of Lynch syndrome patients. This study evaluated the strategies by which patients with endometrial cancer were referred to genetics services. Data from clinic-based patients with endometrial cancer enrolled through the Australian National Endometrial Cancer population-based research study with detailed family history information were analyzed. The Amsterdam II criteria, the revised Bethesda guidelines, and criteria adapted for this study was assessed using personal/family history information. The percentages of patients referred and who could have been referred to genetics services, and the performance of each criterion for identifying possible mismatch-repair (MMR) gene mutation carriers, based on tumor MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), were determined. Research data indicated that 236/397(59%) of patients with endometrial cancer had family/personal history of cancer, including 14 (4%) who fulfilled Amsterdam II criteria. Family history information was noted in the hospital records for only 61(15%) patients, including 7/14 (50%) of patients meeting Amsterdam criteria, and always less extensively than that recorded in the research setting. Only 13 patients (two meeting Amsterdam criteria) were referred for genetic assessment. Of 58 patients with tumor MMR protein-IHC loss, the Amsterdam criteria and Bethesda guidelines identified only three and 34% of these possible germline mutation carriers, respectively. Greater sensitivity (60%) was obtained using a single criterion proposed by our study, ≥2 first-degree or second-degree relatives reporting Lynch cancers. Hospital records indicate poor recognition of family history. Application of research methods show improved identification and may facilitate appropriate referrals of endometrial cancer patients with possible Lynch syndrome.

Simplified identification of Lynch syndrome: a prospective, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Recommended strategies to screen for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer are not applied in daily practice and most of Lynch cases remain undiagnosed.

AIMS

We investigated in routine conditions a strategy that uses simplified clinical criteria plus detection of MisMatch Repair deficiency in tumours to identify Lynch carriers.

METHODS

Colorectal cancer patients that met at least one of three clinical criteria were included: (1) colorectal cancer before 50 years, (2) personal history of colorectal or endometrial cancer, (3) first-degree relative history of colorectal or endometrial cancer. All tumours underwent an MisMatch Repair test combining microsatellite instability analysis and MisMatch Repair immunohistochemistry. Patients with an MisMatch Repair-deficient tumour were offered germline testing.

RESULTS

Of the 307 patients fulfilling the clinical criteria, 46 (15%) had a MisMatch Repair-deficient tumour. Amongst them 27 were identified as Lynch carriers (20 with germline mutation: 12 MLH1, 7 MSH2, 1 MSH6; 7 highly suspected cases despite failure of genetic testing). The simplified clinical criteria selected a population whose MisMatch Repair-deficient status was highly predictive (59%) of Lynch syndrome.

CONCLUSION

This bio-clinical strategy based on simplified clinical criteria combined with an MisMatch Repair test efficiently detected LS cases and is easy to use in clinical practice, outside expert centres.

Who is being referred to cancer genetic counseling? Characteristics of counselees and their referral

Both physician and patient play a role in the referral process for cancer genetic counseling. Access to such counseling is not optimal because some eligible patients are not being reached by current referral practice. We aimed to identify factors associated with the initiator of referral. During a 7-month period, we recorded demographic characteristics like gender, personal and family history of cancer, ethnicity and eligibility for genetic testing for 406 consecutive counselees using a specially designed questionnaire. Counselees were seen in a university hospital or a community hospital (n = 7) in the Netherlands. We also recorded educational level of each counselee, clinical setting and who initiated referral. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the counselees' general characteristics. We analysed the association between counselee characteristics and the initiator of referral by logistic regression. The majority of counselees seemed to have initiated referral themselves but were indeed eligible for genetic testing. In comparison to the general population in the Netherlands, the counselees had a higher level of education, and there were fewer immigrants, although a higher level of education was not found to be a facilitating factor for referral. The clinical setting where a counselee was seen was associated with initiator of referral, although this relationship was not straightforward. There is a complex interaction between clinical setting and initiator of referral, which warrants further research to elucidate the factors involved in this relationship. Patients seen in cancer genetic counseling do not reflect the general population in terms of educational level or ethnicity.

Barriers to and motivations for physician referral of patients to cancer genetics clinics

Although it is well known that under-referral of colon cancer patients to cancer genetics clinics is a chronic problem, no study has yet examined why physicians may be ordering testing independently rather than referring patients to cancer genetics clinics. The current study explored variables which may impact a physician's preference for ordering testing independently or referring patients to outside cancer genetics experts. An online questionnaire, distributed to the membership of the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, yielded responses from 298 physicians. Motivations to refer to cancer genetics clinics rather than order testing independently included fear of genetic discrimination and a belief that patients benefit from genetic counseling about the risks, benefits and consequences of testing. These results suggest that in order to increase referrals, genetic counselors must educate physicians about the unique benefits patients receive from participating in genetic counseling.

Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer

Approximately 20 percent of right-sided colon cancers and 5 percent of left-sided colon and rectal cancers have a deficient DNA mismatch repair system. This results in the widespread accumulation of mutations to nucleotide repeats, some of which occur within the coding regions of cancer-related genes such as TGFβRII and BAX. A standardized definition for microsatellite instability (MSI) based on the presence of deletions to mononucleotide repeats is gaining widespread acceptance in both research and the clinic. Colorectal cancer (CRC) with MSI are characterized histologically by an abundance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, poor differentiation and a signet ring or mucinous phenotype. In younger patients these tumors usually develop along the chromosomal instability pathway, in which case the mismatch repair genes are inactivated by germline mutation, somatic mutation and loss of heterozygosity. In older patients MSI CRC usually develops against a background of widespread hypermethylation that includes methylation-induced silencing of the mismatch repair gene MLH1. The overall biological and clinical phenotype of MSI CRC that arise in these two pathways is likely to be different and may account for some of the discordant results reported in the literature relating to the clinical properties of these tumors. The available evidence indicates that MSI is unlikely to be a clinically useful marker for the prognostic stratification of early-stage CRC. The predictive value of MSI for response to 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy remains controversial, while for other agents the predictive value is difficult to assess because they are used in combination regimens. The MSI phenotype is being actively investigated for novel therapeutic approaches based on the principle of synthetic lethality. Finally, the MSI status of CRC is an extremely useful marker for population-based screening programs that aim to identify individuals and families with the hereditary cancer condition known as Lynch syndrome.

Population-based detection of Lynch syndrome in young colorectal cancer patients using microsatellite instability as the initial test

Approximately 1-2% of colorectal cancers (CRC) arise because of germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes, referred to as Lynch syndrome. These tumours show microsatellite instability (MSI) and loss of expression of mismatch repair proteins. Pre-symptomatic identification of mutation carriers has been demonstrated to improve survival; however, there is concern that many are not being identified using current practices. We evaluated population-based MSI screening of CRC in young patients as a means of ascertaining mutation carriers. CRC diagnosed in patients aged <60 years were identified from pathology records. No prior information was available on family history of cancer. PCR techniques were used to determine MSI in the BAT-26 mononucleotide repeat and mutation in the BRAF oncogene. Loss of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 protein expression was evaluated in MSI+ tumours by immunohistochemistry. MSI+ tumours were found in 105/1,344 (7.8%) patients, of which 7 were excluded as possible Lynch syndrome because of BRAF mutation. Of the 98 "red flag" cases that were followed up, 25 were already known as mutation carriers or members of mutation carrier families. Germline test results were obtained for 35 patients and revealed that 22 showed no apparent mutation, 11 showed likely pathogenic mutations and 2 had unclassified variants. The proportion of MSI+ cases in different age groups that were estimated to be mutation carriers was 89% (<30 years), 83% (30-39), 68% (40-49) and 17% (50-59). We recommend MSI as the initial test for population-based screening of Lynch syndrome in younger CRC patients, regardless of family history.