44
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the ACMG and NSGC to assist medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and other health-care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns, including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the ACMG and NSGC joint practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are current only as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments, and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health-care provider's best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by the ACMG or the NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and neither the ACMG nor the NSGC "approve" or "endorse" any specific methods, practices, or sources of information.Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Yet several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. To develop this guideline, a literature search for hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were reviewed when applicable. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the evidence was ranked as follows: position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines, and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are provided in two formats: (i) tables that list the tumor type along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation and (ii) an alphabetical list of the syndromes, including a brief summary of each and the rationale for the referral criteria that were selected. Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patient or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these referral criteria.

          Related collections

          Most cited references126

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome.

          Providing accurate estimates of cancer risks is a major challenge in the clinical management of Lynch syndrome. To estimate the age-specific cumulative risks of developing various tumors using a large series of families with mutations of the MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes. Families with Lynch syndrome enrolled between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2009, from 40 French cancer genetics clinics participating in the ERISCAM (Estimation des Risques de Cancer chez les porteurs de mutation des gènes MMR) study; 537 families with segregating mutated genes (248 with MLH1; 256 with MSH2; and 33 with MSH6) were analyzed. Age-specific cumulative cancer risks estimated using the genotype restricted likelihood (GRL) method accounting for ascertainment bias. Significant differences in estimated cumulative cancer risk were found between the 3 mutated genes (P = .01). The estimated cumulative risks of colorectal cancer by age 70 years were 41% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 25%-70%) for MLH1 mutation carriers, 48% (95% CI, 30%-77%) for MSH2, and 12% (95% CI, 8%-22%) for MSH6. For endometrial cancer, corresponding risks were 54% (95% CI, 20%-80%), 21% (95% CI, 8%-77%), and 16% (95% CI, 8%-32%). For ovarian cancer, they were 20% (95% CI, 1%-65%), 24% (95% CI, 3%-52%), and 1% (95% CI, 0%-3%). The estimated cumulative risks by age 40 years did not exceed 2% (95% CI, 0%-7%) for endometrial cancer nor 1% (95% CI, 0%-3%) for ovarian cancer, irrespective of the gene. The estimated lifetime risks for other tumor types did not exceed 3% with any of the gene mutations. MSH6 mutations are associated with markedly lower cancer risks than MLH1 or MSH2 mutations. Lifetime ovarian and endometrial cancer risks associated with MLH1 or MSH2 mutations were high but do not increase appreciably until after the age of 40 years.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer).

            Germ-line mutations in the mismatch-repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 lead to the development of the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), conferring a strong susceptibility to cancer. We assessed the frequency of such mutations in patients with colorectal cancer and examined strategies for molecular screening to identify patients with the syndrome. Patients with a new diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma at the major hospitals in metropolitan Columbus, Ohio, were eligible for the study. Genotyping of the tumor for microsatellite instability was the primary screening method. Among patients whose screening results were positive for microsatellite instability, we searched for germ-line mutations in the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 genes with the use of immunohistochemical staining for mismatch-repair proteins, genomic sequencing, and deletion studies. Family members of carriers of the mutations were counseled, and those found to be at risk were offered mutation testing. Of 1066 patients enrolled in the study, 208 (19.5 percent) had microsatellite instability, and 23 of these patients had a mutation causing the Lynch syndrome (2.2 percent). Among the 23 probands with the Lynch syndrome, 10 were more than 50 years of age and 5 did not meet the Amsterdam criteria or the Bethesda guidelines for the diagnosis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (including the use of age and family history to identify patients at high risk for the Lynch syndrome). Genotyping for microsatellite instability alone and immunohistochemical analysis alone each failed to identify two probands. In the families of 21 of the probands, 117 persons at risk were tested, and of these, 52 had Lynch syndrome mutations and 65 did not. Routine molecular screening of patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma for the Lynch syndrome identified mutations in patients and their family members that otherwise would not have been detected. These data suggest that the effectiveness of screening with immunohistochemical analysis of the mismatch-repair proteins would be similar to that of the more complex strategy of genotyping for microsatellite instability. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Very high risk of cancer in familial Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.

              The Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) is an autosomal dominant polyposis disorder with increased risk of multiple cancers, but literature estimates of risk vary. We performed an individual patient meta-analysis to determine the relative risk (RR) of cancer in patients with PJS compared with the general population based on 210 individuals described in 6 publications. For patients with PJS, the RR for all cancers was 15.2 (95% confidence limits [CL], 2, 19). A statistically significant increase of RR was noted for esophagus (57; CL, 2.5, 557), stomach (213; CL, 96, 368), small intestine (520; CL, 220, 1306), colon (84; CL, 47, 137), pancreas (132; CL, 44, 261), lung (17.0; CL, 5.4, 39), breast (15.2; CL, 7.6, 27), uterus (16.0; CL, 1.9, 56), ovary (27; CL, 7.3, 68), but not testicular or cervical malignancies. Cumulative risk for all cancer was 93% from age 15 to 64 years old. Patients with PJS are at very high relative and absolute risk for gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal cancers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Genet. Med.
                Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics
                1530-0366
                1098-3600
                Jan 2015
                : 17
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
                [2 ] Genetic Medicine Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
                [3 ] Cancer Prevention, Detection and Control Research Program, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
                [4 ] Clinical and Translational Hereditary Cancer Program, Division of Genetic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
                Article
                gim2014147
                10.1038/gim.2014.147
                25394175
                a5091dd3-05dd-4eb2-9292-151528cde8a6
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article