4.6 Article

Identification of patients at-risk for Lynch syndrome in a hospital-based colorectal surgery clinic

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 766-773

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i6.766

关键词

Colorectal cancer; Family history; Hereditary cancer; Lynch syndrome; Microsatellite instability phenotype

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS)
  3. Programa de Pos-Graduacao em Ciencias Gastroenterologicas (UFRGS)
  4. Fundacao de Incentivo a Pesquisa do Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre (FIPe-HCPA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To determine the prevalence of a family history suggestive of Lynch syndrome (LS) among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) followed in a coloproctology outpatient clinic in Southern Brazil. METHODS: A consecutive sample of patients with CRC were interviewed regarding personal and family histories of cancer. Clinical data and pathology features of the tumor were obtained from chart review. RESULTS: Of the 212 CRC patients recruited, 61(29%) reported a family history of CRC, 45 (21.2%) were diagnosed under age 50 years and 11 (5.2%) had more than one primary CRC. Family histories consistent with Amsterdam and revised Bethesda criteria for LS were identified in 22 (10.4%) and 100 (47.2%) patients, respectively. Twenty percent of the colorectal tumors had features of the high microsatellite instability phenotype, which was associated with younger age at CRC diagnosis and with Bethesda criteria (P < 0.001). Only 5.3% of the patients above age 50 years had been previously submitted for CRC screening and only 4% of patients with suspected LS were referred for genetic risk assessment. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of patients with CRC were at high risk for LS. Education and training of health care professionals are essential to ensure proper management. (C) 2011 Baishideng. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据