Characterization of family history profiles in a large series of Lynch syndrome carriers.

414 Background: The identification of Lynch syndrome carriers is an unmet medical need. Large studies characterizing family history profiles of unaffected individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome in the absence of a known family mutation have not been reported. Methods: We queried our laboratory database for unaffected patients who underwent Lynch syndrome genetic testing between September 2010 and May 2013 and had a positive test result. All individuals underwent full sequence and large rearrangement analysis of MLH1 and MSH2, and full sequence analysis of MSH6. Some patients also underwent full sequence and large rearrangement analysis of PMS2 and large rearrangement analysis of MSH6 and EPCAM. Those being tested for a known mutation in the family and patients undergoing single gene testing were excluded. We assessed family history profiles in 200 unaffected patients with genetically confirmed Lynch syndrome. Results: Of the 200 patients, 162 female and 38 male Lynch syndrome carriers were identified. Mutations in MLH1 and MSH2 were the most common (30.0% and 32.5%) while mutations in MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM accounted for 21.0%, 13.5%, and 3.0% of all deleterious mutations, respectively. Eighteen patients did not have a first or second degree relative with colorectal cancer. Only 37.8% (73/193) of individuals had a first- or second-degree relative meeting the Amsterdam II criteria and 76.8 % (149/194) of individuals had a first or second degree relative meeting the Revised Bethesda criteria. The average PREMM1,2,6 score was 10.0% with 43.5% (87/200) falling below 5%. In this large cohort, 15.5% (31/200) had neither a first or second degree relative who met the Amsterdam II or Revised Bethesda criteria nor a PREMM1,2,6 score of 5% or greater. Conclusions: In order to improve detection of Lynch syndrome in the population, it is important to consider genetic testing in unaffected individuals even in the absence of a known family mutation. Development of guidelines that include having a single affected relative and extra-colonic cancers is needed to support healthcare providers in identifying appropriate patients for testing.

Screening for Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk amongst Colonoscopy Patients New to an Open-Access Endoscopy Center

Purpose. We evaluated a questionnaire to aid in the recognition of CRC risk, as well as patient interest in their risk status within an open-access endoscopy center. Methods. A questionnaire was administered to new patients presenting for colonoscopy from May 2007 to February 2008. 287 patients were enrolled. Family history was evaluated using Amsterdam 1, II, and Revised Bethesda criteria. Recognition of risk and referral for counseling was assessed. Patients' interest to be contacted by a genetic counselor was also assessed. Results. 13.2 % (38/287) of patients met Revised Bethesda criteria. Of these, 18 (47.4 %) were previously told about their increased risk for CRC. Only 1 patient who met Revised Bethesda criteria (2.6 %) was previously referred for genetics, whereas none of the 3 patients who met Amsterdam I or II criteria were referred. 23.7 % of high-risk patients did not want to be contacted if found to be at increased risk for cancer. Conclusion. In our open-access endoscopy system, a significant number of high-risk patients remain unidentified and underreferred for genetic counseling due to numerous barriers. Our findings lend support to taking a public health approach to identifying those at risk for Lynch syndrome by implementing universal screening of all CRC specimens.