scholarly journals Patterns of cancer family history and genetic counseling eligibility among African Americans with breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancers: A Detroit Research on Cancer Survivors cohort study

Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 126 (21) ◽  
pp. 4744-4752
Author(s):  
Kristen S. Purrington ◽  
Ann G. Schwartz ◽  
Julie J. Ruterbusch ◽  
Mark A. Manning ◽  
Mrudula Nair ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. CRA1505-CRA1505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Wood ◽  
Pamela Kadlubek ◽  
Karen H. Lu ◽  
Dana Wollins ◽  
Jeffrey N. Weitzel ◽  
...  

CRA1505 Background: The cancer family history (CFH) is an important tool for identification of individuals for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT). Prior studies demonstrate a low rate of family history documentation and low referral rates for genetic counseling and genetic testing. Methods: In 2011ASCO began pilot testing new measures in QOPI to evaluate the practice of family history taking and referral for genetic counseling/testing in patients with either breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC). The measures assessed the presence or absence of CFH in 1st/2nd degree relatives, age at cancer diagnosis, referral for GC/GT and outcomes of referral. Results: Between September and October 2011 272 practices pilot tested these measures and reported on 10,466 patients (BC 6569, CRC 3897). 77.4% of all charts reviewed documented presence or absence of CFH in 1st degree relatives (BC 81.2% (CI 80-82%), CRC 77.4% (CI 76-79%), p= <0.001) and 61.5% of charts documented presence or absence of CFH in 2nd degree relatives (BC 68.9% (CI 68-70%), CRC 57.3% (CI 56-59%) p=<0.001). Age at diagnosis was documented for all relatives with cancer in 30.7% of charts (BC 45.2% (CI 44-47%), CRC 35.4% (CI 34-37%) p=<0.001). Patients were referred for GC/GT in 22.1% of all charts reviewed (BC 29.1% (CI 28-30%), CRC 19.6% (CI, 18-21%) p=<0.001). Of patients with hereditary risk (defined by selected risk guidelines) 52.2% of BC and 26.4% CRC were referred for GC/GT. When genetic testing was performed by the practice consent was documented 77.7% of the time and discussion of results was documented 78.8% of the time. Conclusions: Appropriate referral for GC/GT requires a complete and accurate CFH. In this pilot testing of QOPI measures we identified a higher quality of CFH information than expected though with room for improvement. Significant differences were seen between BC and CRC charts with greater accuracy of CFH and higher referral rates among BC patients. To obtain improvement in the identification and management of patients at high risk, significant improvements are needed. Education is part of the answer.


1988 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry T. Lynch ◽  
Patrice Watson ◽  
Theresa Conway ◽  
Mary Lee Fitzsimmons ◽  
Jane Lynch

The Breast ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-254
Author(s):  
P. Hopwood ◽  
F. Keeling ◽  
J. Thompson ◽  
C. Pool ◽  
A. Howell ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16240-e16240
Author(s):  
Viola Barucca ◽  
Andrea Petricca Mancuso ◽  
Salvatore De Marco ◽  
Daniela Iacono ◽  
Carmelilia De Bernardo ◽  
...  

e16240 Background: Germline pathogenetic mutations in BRCA1/2 genes are described in pancreatic cancer patients (PCP) in about 5–9% of cases. The purpose of this study was to determine their relevance in an unselected consecutive cohort of PCP describing family and clinical history. Methods: Patients (pts) were recruited at a single cancer center from September 2019 to October 2020. Participants provided blood for DNA analysis; cancer family history and treatment records were reviewed; DNA was analyzed by Next Generation Sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification for germline variants in BRCA1/2 Results: 69 pts were included, 61 (88,4%) with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer received first line chemotherapy and 38 (62%) were full eligible for BRCA analysis; 8 out of 69 pts were BRCA screened even if in adjuvant setting, 10 patients are still under evaluation. Out of the 38 first line screened PCP germline BRCA mutations were found in 9 (19%): 4 pts (8,7%) with pathogenetic BRCA-2 variants (subgroup 1 – S1) and 5 pts (10,8%) with variants of unknown significances (VUSs), i.e. c.5339T>C and c.5096G>A in BRCA1 (subgroup 2 – S2). Samples from 29 pts were established as BRCA wild-type (subgroup 3 – S3). Pathogenetic BRCA-2 variants were observed in 2 male and 2 female (median age, 61.5 years, range 48-69), 3 out 4 without family history of breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancer, one patient (pt) had ovarian cancer family history. All pts had a negative personal history of others cancers. All S1 pts received FOLFIRINOX regimen achieving one complete response, 2 partials responses and 1 disease progression with RECIST criteria. The S2 included 2 male and 3 female (median age, 61 years, range 45-70) 2 with family history of pancreatic cancer, no pt had personal history of others cancers; 2 pts had stable disease and 3 disease progression receiving platinum-based regimen (4 pts) and gemcitabine/nabpaclitaxel (1 pt), respectively. Platinum responders were observed only in the well known pathogenetic BRCA-2 variants group with twice a median progression-free survival (PFS, months -ms-) as compared to the one observed in VUSs group. (>6 C.I. 95% 2- >12 ms; vs 3 ms, 95% C.I. 3-12 ms). S3 included 9 male and 20 female, (median age, 66 years, range 42-78); 5 pts had family history of pancreatic or breast cancer, 5 pts had a personal history of other cancers (breast and thyroid). In this group,16 pts received a platinum based regimen and 12 pts have been treated without platinum based regimen. Conclusions: Our results suggest that: 1) BRCA pathogenetic mutations rate (8,7%) is in line with literature data and seems not to be related with family or personal history, and to be associated with a better outcome; 2) No BRCA mutations were detected in patients over 70 years. 3) VUSs subgroup do not seem to benefit from platinum-regimen.


2022 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiachen Zhou ◽  
Kexin Sun ◽  
Shaoming Wang ◽  
Ru Chen ◽  
Minjuan Li ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document