Purpose Universal screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) refers to routine tumor testing for microsatellite instability (MSI) among all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite its widespread adoption, real-world data on the yield is lacking in Korean population. We studied the yield of adopting universal screening for LS in comparison with pedigree-based screening in a tertiary center.
Materials and Methods CRC patients from 2007-2018 were reviewed. Family histories were obtained and were evaluated for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) using Amsterdam II criteria. Tumor testing for MSI began in 2007 and genetic testing was offered using all available clinicopathologic data. Yield of genetic testing for LS was compared for each approach and step.
Results Of the 5,520 patients, tumor testing was performed in 4,701 patients (85.2%) and family histories were obtained from 4,241 patients (76.8%). Hereditary CRC (LS or HNPCC) was present in 69 patients (1.3%). MSI-high was present in 6.9%, and 25 patients had confirmed LS. Genetic testing was performed in 41.2% (47/114) of MSI-high patients, out of which 40.4% (19/47) were diagnosed with LS. There were six additional LS patients found outside of tumor testing. For pedigree-based screening, Amsterdam II criteria diagnosed 55 patients with HNPCC. Fifteen of these patients underwent genetic testing, and 11 (73.3%) were diagnosed with LS. Two patients without prior family history were diagnosed with LS and relied solely on tumor testing results.
Conclusion Despite widespread adoption of routine tumor testing for MSI, this is not a fail-safe approach to screen all LS patients. Obtaining a thorough family history in combination with universal screening provides a more comprehensive ‘universal’ screening method for LS.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: From Diagnosis to Surgical Options Rami James N. Aoun, Matthew F. Kalady Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2025; 38(03): 179. CrossRef
Colon cancer: the 2023 Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment Hyo Seon Ryu, Hyun Jung Kim, Woong Bae Ji, Byung Chang Kim, Ji Hun Kim, Sung Kyung Moon, Sung Il Kang, Han Deok Kwak, Eun Sun Kim, Chang Hyun Kim, Tae Hyung Kim, Gyoung Tae Noh, Byung-Soo Park, Hyeung-Min Park, Jeong Mo Bae, Jung Hoon Bae, Ni Eun Seo, Cha Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(2): 89. CrossRef
Universal screening of colorectal tumors for lynch syndrome: a survey of patient experiences and opinions Alexander T. Petterson, Jennifer Garbarini, Maria J. Baker Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Genetic Testing for Prostate Cancer, Urothelial Cancer, and Kidney Cancer Hyunho Han, Minyong Kang, Seok-Soo Byun, Seok Joong Yun Journal of Urologic Oncology.2023; 21(2): 128. CrossRef
Diagnosis of patients with Lynch syndrome lacking the Amsterdam II or Bethesda criteria Miguel Angel Trujillo-Rojas, María de la Luz Ayala-Madrigal, Melva Gutiérrez-Angulo, Anahí González-Mercado, José Miguel Moreno-Ortiz Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: State of the Art in Lynch Syndrome Antonio Nolano, Alessia Medugno, Silvia Trombetti, Raffaella Liccardo, Marina De Rosa, Paola Izzo, Francesca Duraturo Cancers.2022; 15(1): 75. CrossRef
Purpose
The BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene is transmitted in an autosomal dominant fashion, and genetic testing of first-degree relatives of patients with family-specific mutation (FSM) is recommended. This study examined factors affecting the uptake of FSM testing among relatives of patients with peritoneal, ovarian, or fallopian tube (POFT) cancer with confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation.
Materials and Methods
Data from medical charts of 392 eligible patients and their relatives who had undergone outpatient genetic counseling/testing were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical factors were compared between family members who had and had not undergone genetic counseling/testing.
Results
The uptake of FSM testing was 30.5% (129/423) among first-degree living relatives and 53.5% (69/129) within the overall family unit. The average time from genetic testing of the proband to the first FSM test within a family was 168 days (range, 23 to 681 days). Having a living father (33.8% vs. 13.3%, p=0.007) and daughter (79.4% vs. 60.3%, p=0.019) increased the uptake of FSM testing. FSM testing was more likely among female than among male relatives of cancer patients (40.9% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Approximately one-third of first-degree relatives of patients with a POFT cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation underwent FSM testing. Having a living father or daughter was a factor affecting the uptake of FSM testing, which was higher among female than among male relatives of the proband. This discrepancy might be due to a misconception that the BRCA gene is associated with women rather than with men.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Cascade testing in Italian Hereditary Breast Ovarian Cancer families: a missed opportunity for cancer prevention? Lucia Trevisan, Lea Godino, Linda Battistuzzi, Giovanni Innella, Elena Luppi, Giulia Buzzatti, Viviana Gismondi, Eva Blondeaux, Luigina Ada Bonelli, Daniela Turchetti, Liliana Varesco Familial Cancer.2024; 23(2): 197. CrossRef
Cancer burden in individuals with single versus double pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes Nihat B. Agaoglu, Brittany L. Bychkovsky, Carolyn Horton, Min-Tzu Lo, Linda Polfus, Cassidy Carraway, Parichehr Hemyari, Colin Young, Marcy E. Richardson, Rochelle Scheib, Judy E. Garber, Huma Q. Rana Genetics in Medicine Open.2024; 2: 101829. CrossRef
Streamlined Genetic Education and Cascade Testing in Men from Hereditary Breast Ovarian Cancer Families: A Randomized Trial Christopher Grisham, Beth N. Peshkin, Lia Sorgen, Claudine Isaacs, Mary Kathleen Ladd, Aryana Jacobs, Savannah Binion, Mara Tynan, Emily Kuchinsky, Susan Friedman, Kathryn L. Taylor, Kristi Graves, Suzanne O’Neill, David Kim, Marc D. Schwartz Public Health Genomics.2024; 27(1): 100. CrossRef
Uptake of Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Muhammad Danyal Ahsan, Isabelle R. Chandler, Samantha Min, Benjamin Grant, Michelle Primiano, Jamieson Greenwald, Tamar N. Soussana, Becky Baltich Nelson, Charlene Thomas, Eloise Chapman-Davis, Ravi N. Sharaf, Melissa K. Frey Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology.2024; 67(4): 702. CrossRef
Prevalence and spectrum of pathogenic variants among patients with multiple primary cancers evaluated by clinical characteristics Brittany L. Bychkovsky, Min‐Tzu Lo, Amal Yussuf, Carrie Horton, Marcy Richardson, Holly LaDuca, Judy E. Garber, Huma Q. Rana Cancer.2022; 128(6): 1275. CrossRef
Health equity in the implementation of genomics and precision medicine: A public health imperative Muin J. Khoury, Scott Bowen, W. David Dotson, Emily Drzymalla, Ridgely F. Green, Robert Goldstein, Katherine Kolor, Leandris C. Liburd, Laurence S. Sperling, Rebecca Bunnell Genetics in Medicine.2022; 24(8): 1630. CrossRef
Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Melissa K. Frey, Muhammad Danyal Ahsan, Hannah Bergeron, Jenny Lin, Xuan Li, Rana K. Fowlkes, Priyanka Narayan, Roni Nitecki, Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain, Haley A. Moss, Becky Baltich Nelson, Charlene Thomas, Paul J. Christos, Jada G. Hamilton, Eloise Chapma Journal of Clinical Oncology.2022; 40(35): 4129. CrossRef
Differences in Cancer Phenotypes Among Frequent CHEK2 Variants and Implications for Clinical Care—Checking CHEK2 Brittany L. Bychkovsky, Nihat B. Agaoglu, Carolyn Horton, Jing Zhou, Amal Yussuf, Parichehr Hemyari, Marcy E. Richardson, Colin Young, Holly LaDuca, Deborah L. McGuinness, Rochelle Scheib, Judy E. Garber, Huma Q. Rana JAMA Oncology.2022; 8(11): 1598. CrossRef