Improving adherence to surveillance and screening recommendations for people with colorectal cancer and their first degree relatives: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite clinical practice guidelines to guide surveillance care for those who have completed treatment for this disease as well as screening for first degree relatives of people with CRC, the level of uptake of these recommendations remains uncertain. If outcomes for both patients and their families are to be improved, it is important to establish systematic and cost-effective interventions to improve adherence to guideline recommendations for CRC surveillance and screening.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A randomized controlled trial will be used to test the effectiveness of a print-based intervention to improve adherence to colonoscopy surveillance among people with CRC and adherence to CRC screening recommendations among their first degree relatives (FDRs). People diagnosed with CRC in the past 10 months will be recruited through a population-based cancer registry. Consenting participants will be asked if their first degree relatives might also be willing to participate in the trial. Information on family history of CRC will be obtained from patients at baseline. Patients and their families will be randomized to either minimal ethical care or the print-based intervention. The print-based intervention for FDRs will be tailored to the participant's level of risk of CRC as determined by the self-reported family history assessment. Follow up data on surveillance and screening participation will be collected from patients and their FDRs respectively at 12, 24 and 36 months' post recruitment. The primary analyses will relate to comparing levels of guideline adherence in usual care group versus print-based group in the patient sample and the FDR sample respectively.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Results of this study will provide contribute to the evidence base about effective strategies to a) improve adherence to surveillance recommendation for people with CRC; and b) improve adherence to screening recommendation for FDRs of people with CRC. The use of a population-based cancer registry to access the target population may have significant advantages in increasing the reach of the intervention.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Registration Number (ACTRN): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12609000628246">ACTRN12609000628246</a>.</p

Secondary Prevention of Colorectal Cancer: Is There an Optimal Follow-up for Patients with Colorectal Cancer?

Secondary prevention of colorectal cancer, as opposed to primary prevention, indicates that a person has already had the disease and there are steps being taken to prevent cancer recurrence, usually as metachronous tumors. This generally involves annual surveillance with colonoscopy after surgical removal of the initial cancer if some aspect of the colon remains. However, some familial cases may involve other modalities, such as cyclooxygenase inhibitors, as an adjunct after the initial operation. Genetic testing in suspected familial cases may identify candidates for secondary prevention. The timing for secondary prevention is critical to prevent recurrent advanced disease, which is detrimental to patient survival. Recommendations are often empiric, but some cases are based on the biological behavior of the tumor. Close follow-up with a competent health care provider, such as a gastroenterologist, is necessary to help prevent recurrence

Annual outpatient hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling (OHES) in HNPCC/Lynch syndrome (LS)

Background: LS women have a 40-60 % lifetime risk of endometrial cancer (EC). Most international guidelines recommend screening. However, data on efficacy are limited. Purpose: To assess the performance of OHES for EC screening in LS and compare it with transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) alone. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study of LS women attending a tertiary high-risk familial gynaecological cancer clinic was conducted. LS women opting for EC screening underwent annual OHES and TVS. Histopathological specimens were processed using a strict protocol. Data of women screened between October 2007 and March 2010 were analysed from a bespoke database. Histology was used as the gold standard. Diagnostic accuracy of OHES was compared with TVS using specificity, and positive (PLR) and negative (NLR) likelihood ratios. Results: Forty-one LS women underwent 69 screens (41 prevalent, 28 incident). Four (three prevalent, one incident) women were detected to have EC/atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH), five had endometrial polyps and two had endometrial hyperplasia (EH) on OHES. TVS detected two of four EC/AEH. OHES had similar specificity of 89.8 % (CI 79.2, 96.2 %), but higher PLR 9.8 (CI 4.6, 21) and lower NLR (zero) compared to TVS: specificity 84.75 %(CI 73, 92.8 %), PLR 3.28 (CI 1.04, 10.35) and NLR 0.59 (CI 0.22, 1.58). No interval cancers occurred over a median follow-up of 22 months. The annual incidence was 3.57 % (CI 0.09, 18.35) for EC, 10.71 % (CI 2.27, 28.23) for polyps and 21.4 % (CI 8.3, 40.1) for any endometrial pathology. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that in LS, annual OHES is acceptable and has high diagnostic accuracy for EC/AEH screening. Larger international studies are needed for confirmation, given the relatively small numbers of LS women at individual centres. It reinforces the current recommendation that endometrial sampling is crucial when screening these women. © 2012 Springer-Verlag

The APC variants I1307K and E1317Q are associated with colorectal tumors, but not always with a family history

Classical familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a high-penetrance autosomal dominant disease that predisposes to hundreds or thousands of colorectal adenomas and carcinoma and that results from truncating mutations in the APC gene. A variant of FAP is attenuated adenomatous polyposis coli, which results from germ-line mutations in the 5' and 3' regions of the APC gene. Attenuated adenomatous polyposis coli patients have "multiple" colorectal adenomas (typically fewer than 100) without the florid phenotype of classical FAP. Another group of patients with multiple adenomas has no mutations in the APC gene, and their phenotype probably results from variation at a locus, or loci, elsewhere in the genome. Recently, however, a missense variant of APC (I1307K) was described that confers an increased risk of colorectal tumors, including multiple adenomas, in Ashkenazim. We have studied a set of 164 patients with multiple colorectal adenomas and/or carcinoma and analyzed codons 1263-1377 (exon 15G) of the APC gene for germ-line variants. Three patients with the I1307K allele were detected, each of Ashkenazi descent. Four patients had a germ-line E1317Q missense variant of APC that was not present in controls; one of these individuals had an unusually large number of metaplastic polyps of the colorectum. There is increasing evidence that there exist germ-line variants of the APC gene that predispose to the development of multiple colorectal adenomas and carcinoma, but without the florid phenotype of classical FAP, and possibly with importance for colorectal cancer risk in the general population

Patients with an unexplained microsatellite instable tumour have a low risk of familial cancer

The cancer risk is unknown for those families in which a microsatellite instable tumour is neither explained by MLH1 promoter methylation nor by a germline mutation in a mismatch repair (MMR) gene. Such information is essential for genetic counselling. Families suspected of Lynch syndrome (n=614) were analysed for microsatellite instability, MLH1 promoter methylation and/or germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. Characteristics of the 76 families with a germline mutation (24 MLH1, 2 PMS2, 32 MSH2, and 18 MSH6) were compared with those of 18 families with an unexplained microsatellite instable tumour. The mean age at diagnosis of the index patients in both groups was comparable at 44 years. Immunohistochemistry confirmed the loss of an MMR protein. Together this suggests germline inactivation of a known gene. The Amsterdam II criteria were fulfilled in 50/75 families (66%) that carried a germline mutation in an MMR gene and in only 2/18 families (11%) with an unexplained microsatellite instable tumour (P<0.0001). Current diagnostic strategies can detect almost all highly penetrant MMR gene mutations. Patients with an as yet unexplained microsatellite instable tumour likely carry a different type of mutation that confers a lower risk of cancer for relatives

Improving calculation, interpretation and communication of familial colorectal cancer risk: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 88114.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Individuals with multiple relatives with colorectal cancer (CRC) and/or a relative with early-onset CRC have an increased risk of developing CRC. They are eligible for preventive measures, such as surveillance by regular colonoscopy and/or genetic counselling. Currently, most at-risk individuals do not follow the indicated follow-up policy. In a new guideline on familial and hereditary CRC, clinicians have new tasks in calculating, interpreting, and communicating familial CRC risk. This will lead to better recognition of individuals at an increased familial CRC risk, enabling them to take effective preventive measures. This trial compares two implementation strategies (a common versus an intensive implementation strategy), focussing on clinicians' risk calculation, interpretation, and communication, as well as patients' uptake of the indicated follow-up policy. METHODS: A clustered randomized controlled trial including an effect, process, and cost evaluation will be conducted in eighteen hospitals. Nine hospitals in the control group will receive the common implementation strategy (i.e., dissemination of the guideline). In the intervention group, an intensive implementation strategy will be introduced. Clinicians will receive education and tools for risk calculation, interpretation, and communication. Patients will also receive these tools, in addition to patient decision aids. The effect evaluation includes assessment of the number of patients for whom risk calculation, interpretation, and communication is performed correctly, and the number of patients following the indicated follow-up policy. The actual exposure to the implementation strategies and users' experiences will be assessed in the process evaluation. In a cost evaluation, the costs of the implementation strategies will be determined. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will help determine the most effective method as well as the costs of improving the recognition of individuals at an increased familial CRC risk. It will provide insight into the experiences of both patients and clinicians with these strategies.The knowledge gathered in this study can be used to improve the recognition of familial and hereditary CRC at both the national and international level, and will serve as an example to improve care for patients and their relatives worldwide. Our results may also be useful in improving healthcare in other diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00929097

Cancer risk in MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers; different risk profiles may influence clinical management

Background: Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with a high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and extracolonic malignancies, such as endometrial carcinoma (EC). The risk is dependent of the affected mismatch repair gene. The aim of the present study was to calculate the cumulative risk of LS related cancers in proven MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers.Methods: The studypopulation consisted out of 67 proven LS families. Clinical information including mutation status and tumour diagnosis was collected. Cumulative risks were calculated and compared using Kaplan Meier survival analysis.Results: MSH6 mutation carriers, both males and females had the lowest risk for developing CRC at age 70 years, 54% and 30% respectively and the age of onset was delayed by 3-5 years in males. With respect to endometrial carcinoma, female MSH6 mutation carriers had the highest risk at age 70 years (61%) compared to MLH1 (25%) and MSH2 (49%). Also, the age of EC onset was delayed by 5-10 years in comparison with MLH1 and MSH2.Conclusions: Although the cumulative lifetime risk of LS related cancer is similar, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutations seem to cause distinguishable cancer risk profiles. Female MSH6 mutation carriers have a lower CRC risk and a higher risk for developing endometrial carcinoma. As a consequence, surveillance colonoscopy starting at age 30 years instead of 20-25 years is more suitable. Also, prophylactic hysterectomy may be more indicated in female MSH6 mutation carriers compared to MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers

Lynch syndrome: barriers to and facilitators of screening and disease management

Background Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer with confirmed carriers at high risk for colorectal (CRC) and extracolonic cancers. The purpose of the current study was to develop a greater understanding of the factors influencing decisions about disease management post-genetic testing. Methods The study used a grounded theory approach to data collection and analysis as part of a multiphase project examining the psychosocial and behavioral impact of predictive DNA testing for Lynch syndrome. Individual and small group interviews were conducted with individuals from 10 families with the MSH2 intron 5 splice site mutation or exon 8 deletion. The data from confirmed carriers (n = 23) were subjected to re-analysis to identify key barriers to and/or facilitators of screening and disease management. Results Thematic analysis identified personal, health care provider and health care system factors as dominant barriers to and/or facilitators of managing Lynch syndrome. Person-centered factors reflect risk perceptions and decision-making, and enduring screening/disease management. The perceived knowledge and clinical management skills of health care providers also influenced participation in recommended protocols. The health care system barriers/facilitators are defined in terms of continuity of care and coordination of services among providers. Conclusions Individuals with Lynch syndrome often encounter multiple barriers to and facilitators of disease management that go beyond the individual to the provider and health care system levels. The current organization and implementation of health care services are inadequate. A coordinated system of local services capable of providing integrated, efficient health care and follow-up, populated by providers with knowledge of hereditary cancer, is necessary to maintain optimal health