General Practitioners and GenesPerceived Roles, Confidence and Satisfaction with Knowledge

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.

Cancer genetics: consultants' perceptions of their roles, confidence and satisfaction with knowledge

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Genetic testing for susceptibility for common cancers is widely available. Cancer specialists and specialists in other areas may have a role in identifying and referring patients who would benefit from a consultation with a specialist in genetics. This study aimed to find out which consultants believed that genetic testing was relevant to their practice. We also wanted to determine their views of their roles in relation to genetic testing, their confidence in these roles, and the value of different educational tools.

METHODS

This was a self-completed, cross-sectional, postal survey of all the consultants in Northern Ireland (n=520, response rate=59.3%) identified from the Central Services Agency list.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety questionnaires were returned (44%). A total of 28.6% did not complete the questionnaire stating that genetics was not relevant to their practice. Few consultants reported having consultations related to genetic disease, receiving training in genetics and referring to genetics services. There was some dissatisfaction with their current knowledge of genetics and they believed that guidelines and educational tools may be useful. The respondents lacked confidence in undertaking some of their roles. Through their responses to the cancer scenarios, these consultants showed that they would offer appropriate advice and referrals. Many consultants did not know if family history information should be provided to insurance companies.

CONCLUSIONS

Some consultants may require further training to enable them to fulfil their roles in relation to genetics. Tools or guidelines to assist with referral decisions may also be useful. Consultants may need clearer guidance regarding the provision of family history information to insurance companies.