Advertisement

Familial Cancer

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 377–387 | Cite as

Universal screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: patient perspectives on screening and sharing results with at-risk relatives

  • Jessica Ezzell HunterEmail author
  • Kathleen A. Arnold
  • Jennifer E. Cook
  • Jamilyn Zepp
  • Marian J. Gilmore
  • Alan F. Rope
  • James V. Davis
  • Kellene M. Bergen
  • Elizabeth Esterberg
  • Kristin R. Muessig
  • Susan K. Peterson
  • Sapna Syngal
  • Louise Acheson
  • Georgia Wiesner
  • Jacob Reiss
  • Katrina A. B. Goddard
Original Article

Abstract

Universal screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) among all cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) could increase the diagnosis of LS and reduce morbidity and mortality of LS-associated cancers. Given universal screening includes all patients, irrespective of high risk factors such early age at onset or family history of CRC, it is important to understand perspectives of all patients and not just those at high risk. As part of a study to assess the feasibility and implementation of universal screening, 189 patients newly diagnosed with CRC were surveyed about their interest in screening for LS and communication of results with at-risk family members. Overall, participants responded positively regarding screening for LS, with most wanting to know their genetic risks in general (86%) and risk of hereditary CRC (93%). Prior to receiving screening results, most participants stated they intended to share their screening results with parents (89%), siblings (96%), and children (96%). Of the 28 participants who received a positive LS screening result, 26 (93%) reported sharing their result with at least one first-degree family member. Interest in screening for LS and communication of screening results with family members was not associated with high risk factors. This study indicates that patients are interested in being screened for LS and that sharing information on the risk of LS with at-risk family members is not a significant barrier. These findings provide novel insight into patient perspectives about screening for LS and can guide successful implementation of universal screening programs.

Keywords

Lynch syndrome HNPCC Colorectal cancer Genetic screening Genetic testing Microsatellite instability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Elizabeth Hess for her editorial support as well as all participants who made this work possible.

Funding

This work was supported through a grant by the National Institute of Health: 5R01CA140377 (Goddard).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E et al (2008) Feasibility of screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(35):5783–5788PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peltomaki P (2003) Role of DNA mismatch repair defects in the pathogenesis of human cancer. J Clin Oncol 21(6):1174–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peltomaki P, Vasen H (2004) Mutations associated with HNPCC predisposition: update of ICG-HNPCC/INSiGHT mutation database. Dis Markers 20(4–5):269–276PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kempers MJ, Kuiper RP, Ockeloen CW et al (2011) Risk of colorectal and endometrial cancers in EPCAM deletion-positive Lynch syndrome: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol 12(1):49–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barrow E, Hill J, Evans DG (2013) Cancer risk in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer 12(2):229–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vasen HF (2005) Clinical description of the Lynch syndrome [hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)]. Fam Cancer 4(3):219–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jarvinen HJ, Mecklin JP, Sistonen P (1995) Screening reduces colorectal cancer rate in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 108(5):1405–1411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Boland CR, Hamilton SR et al (1997) A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Syndrome: meeting highlights and Bethesda guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst 89(23):1758–1762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP et al (2004) Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(4):261–268PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Khan PM, Lynch HT (1991) The International Collaborative Group on hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum 34(5):424–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Lynch HT (1999) New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 116(6):1453–1456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kastrinos F, Steyerberg EW, Mercado R et al (2011) The PREMM(1,2,6) model predicts risk of MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 germline mutations based on cancer history. Gastroenterology 140(1):73–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen S, Wang W, Lee S et al (2006) Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome. JAMA 296(12):1479–1487PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barnetson RA, Tenesa A, Farrington SM et al (2006) Identification and survival of carriers of mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes in colon cancer. N Engl J Med 354(26):2751–2763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hampel H, Stephens JA, Pukkala E et al (2005) Cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: later age of onset. Gastroenterology 129(2):415–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stoffel E, Mukherjee B, Raymond VM et al (2009) Calculation of risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer among patients with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology 137(5):1621–1627PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cross DS, Rahm AK, Kauffman TL et al (2013) Underutilization of Lynch syndrome screening in a multisite study of patients with colorectal cancer. Genet Med 15(12):933–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E et al (2005) Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). N Engl J Med 352(18):1851–1860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Julie C, Tresallet C, Brouquet A et al (2008) Identification in daily practice of patients with Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer): revised Bethesda guidelines-based approach versus molecular screening. Am J Gastroenterol 103(11):2825–2835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perez-Carbonell L, Ruiz-Ponte C, Guarinos C et al (2012) Comparison between universal molecular screening for Lynch syndrome and revised Bethesda guidelines in a large population-based cohort of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut 61(6):865–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Lier MG, De Wilt JH, Wagemakers JJ et al (2009) Underutilization of microsatellite instability analysis in colorectal cancer patients at high risk for Lynch syndrome. Scand J Gastroenterol 44(5):600–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Group EW (2009) Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med 11(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palomaki GE, McClain MR, Melillo S, Hampel HL, Thibodeau SN (2009) EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Genet Med 11(1):42–65PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Provenzale D, Jasperson K, Ahnen DJ et al (2014) Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: colorectalGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Giardiello FM, Hampel HL, Burt RW (2015) ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol 110(2):223–262PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE et al (2014) Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the US Multi-society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 109(8):1159–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bulletins-Gynecology CoP, Oncology SoG (2014) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 147: Lynch syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 124(5):1042–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hunter JE, Zepp JM, Gilmore MJ et al (2015) Universal tumor screening for lynch syndrome: assessment of the perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer regarding benefits and barriers. Cancer 121:3281–3289PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Acheson LS, Zyzanski SJ, Stange KC, Deptowicz A, Wiesner GL (2006) Validation of a self-administered, computerized tool for collecting and displaying the family history of cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(34):5395–5402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leenen CH, Heijer M, van der Meer C, Kuipers EJ, van Leerdam ME, Wagner A (2016) Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome: family communication and motivation. Fam Cancer 15(1):63–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stoffel EM, Ford B, Mercado RC et al (2008) Sharing genetic test results in Lynch syndrome: communication with close and distant relatives. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 6(3):333–338PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McCann S, MacAuley D, Barnett Y et al (2009) Family communication, genetic testing and colonoscopy screening in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer: a qualitative study. Psychooncology 18(11):1208–1215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leventhal KG, Tuong W, Peshkin BN et al (2013) “Is it really worth it to get tested?”: primary care patients’ impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer. J Genet Couns 22(1):138–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Croyle RT, Lerman C (1993) Interest in genetic testing for colon cancer susceptibility: cognitive and emotional correlates. Prev Med 22(2):284–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hadley DW, Jenkins J, Dimond E et al (2003) Genetic counseling and testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 163(5):573–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kinney AY, Choi YA, DeVellis B, Millikan R, Kobetz E, Sandler RS (2000) Attitudes toward genetic testing in patients with colorectal cancer. Cancer Pract 8(4):178–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Petersen GM, Larkin E, Codori AM et al (1999) Attitudes toward colon cancer gene testing: survey of relatives of colon cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8(4 Pt 2):337–344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tomiak E, Samson A, Spector N et al (2014) Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome: if we build it, will they come? Lessons learned from the uptake of clinical genetics services by individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC). Fam Cancer 13(1):75–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Ezzell Hunter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kathleen A. Arnold
    • 1
  • Jennifer E. Cook
    • 1
  • Jamilyn Zepp
    • 1
  • Marian J. Gilmore
    • 1
  • Alan F. Rope
    • 1
  • James V. Davis
    • 1
  • Kellene M. Bergen
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Esterberg
    • 1
  • Kristin R. Muessig
    • 1
  • Susan K. Peterson
    • 2
  • Sapna Syngal
    • 3
  • Louise Acheson
    • 4
  • Georgia Wiesner
    • 5
  • Jacob Reiss
    • 1
  • Katrina A. B. Goddard
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente NorthwestPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Behavioral ScienceThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Reproductive Biology, and OncologyCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  5. 5.Vanderbilt Hereditary Cancer Program, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer CenterVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations