4.7 Article

Feasibility of Gynaecologist Led Lynch Syndrome Testing in Women with Endometrial Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9061842

Keywords

Lynch syndrome; consent; anxiety; germline testing; endometrial cancer

Funding

  1. Doctoral Medical Research Council (MRC) [MR/M018431/1]
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [NF-SI-0513-10076, NIHR-CS-012-009]
  3. NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre [IS-BRC-1215-20007]
  4. MRC
  5. MRC [MR/M018431/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A barrier to Lynch syndrome testing is the need for prior genetic counselling, a resource demanding process for both patients and healthcare services. We explored the impact of gynaecologist led Lynch syndrome testing in women with endometrial cancer. Women were approached before surgery, on the day of surgery or during routine follow up. Lynch syndrome testing was offered irrespective of age, family history or tumour characteristics. Women's reasons for being tested were explored using the Motivations and Concerns for GeNEtic Testing (MACGNET) instrument. The short form State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) was used to measure anxiety levels. Only 3/305 women declined Lynch syndrome testing. In total, 175/220 completed MACGNET and STAI-6 psychological instruments. The consent process took an average of 7 min 36 s (SD 5 min 16 s) to complete. The point of care at which consent was taken (before, day of surgery, during follow up) did not influence motivation for Lynch syndrome testing. Anxiety levels were significantly lower when women were consented during follow up (mean reversed STAI-6 score 32 vs. 42,p= 0.001). Anxiety levels were not affected by familial cancer history (p= 0.41). Gynaecologist led Lynch syndrome testing is feasible and may even be desirable in endometrial cancer, especially when offered during routine follow up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available