Universal tumor screening for lynch syndrome: perspectives of patients regarding willingness and informed consent

Aim: Lynch Syndrome is associated with a significant risk of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and other cancers. Universal tumor screening is a strategy to identify high-risk individuals by testing all CRC tumors for molecular features suggestive of Lynch Syndrome. Patient interest in screening and preferences for consent have been underexplored. Methods: A postal survey was administered to CRC patients in a Canadian province. Results: Most patients (81.4%) were willing to have tumors tested if universal tumor screening were available and were willing to discuss test results with family members and healthcare professionals. The majority (62.6%) preferred informed consent be obtained prior to screening. Conclusion: Patients were supportive of universal screening. They expected consent to be obtained, contrary to current practice across Canada and elsewhere.

Needs assessment and utilization of an educational workshop and support group for Lynch syndrome patients.

e12536 Background: Lynch syndrome (LS) requires a lifelong commitment to multi-organ cancer surveillance and/or prophylactic surgery. Emotional and informational support for LS patients is not readily available. Through an LS Educational Workshop (LSEW) we assessed the need and interest in an educational and support group for LS families. Methods: LS patients identified at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) were sent LSEW invitations and a pre-workshop survey. All patients underwent prior genetic counseling. Though family members could attend, only index patients completed the surveys. All attendees were asked to complete both an evaluation of the LSEW and a needs assessment regarding implementation of a support group. Results: Invitations to 213 LS patients were mailed. Of 8 potential discussion topics, the most desired were chemoprevention and cancer screening recommendations. Thus, the 1st hour of the LSEW was a didactic session by physicians on these topics and LS research. The 2nd hour was a panel on patient experiences, family communication and Q&A. Fifty-three patients (25% of those invited) and 22 family members attended. The LSEW evaluation was completed by 26 index attendees, with 88% overall satisfied or extremely satisfied. Common requests for improvement were better division of informational and support aspects, and more Q&A. Of 23 who completed the needs assessment, 73% considered an LS support group as either somewhat or extremely useful. The group was equally divided on preference for a free-flow vs topic-focused approach; 57% felt a support group would have increased utility immediately after genetic testing. An in person venue was preferred by 87% over a virtual one, and 73% preferred every 3-6 month meetings. Respondents preferred a group inclusive of gender and cancer history. Based on this, the MSKCC Lynch Syndrome Patient Advocacy Network was created in 2012 with an in-person, every 4 month meeting facilitated by a social worker. Conclusions: Following genetic counseling, there is a continued need for informational sessions and support groups for LS patients/family members. Implementation of an in-person support group is feasible and responsive to the needs of our LS population.