Development of a questionnaire to identify persons with a family history of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Background: Preventive screening for intracranial aneurysms is effective in persons with a positive family history of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), but for many relatives of aSAH patients, it can be difficult to assess whether their relative had an aSAH or another type of stroke. Aim: We aimed to develop a family history questionnaire for people in the population who believe they have a first-degree relative who had a stroke and to assess its accuracy to identify relatives of aSAH patients. Methods: A questionnaire to distinguish between aSAH and other stroke types (ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage) was developed by a team of clinicians and consumers. The level of agreement between the questionnaire outcome and medical diagnosis was pilot tested in 30 previously admitted aSAH patients. Next, the sensitivity and specificity of the questionnaire were assessed in 91 first-degree relatives (siblings/children) of previously admitted stroke patients. Results: All 30 aSAH patients were identified by the questionnaire in the pilot study; 29 of 30 first-degree relatives of aSAH patients were correctly identified. The questionnaire had a sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 83–100%) and a specificity of 93% (95% CI = 84–98%) when tested in the first-degree relatives of stroke patients. Conclusion: Our questionnaire can help persons to discriminate an aSAH from other types of stroke in their affected relative. This family history questionnaire is developed in the Netherlands but could also be used in other countries after validation.

Brief family history questionnaire to screen for Lynch syndrome in women with newly diagnosed non-serous, non-mucinous ovarian cancers

ObjectivesWhile ovarian cancer is the third most common Lynch syndrome-associated cancer in women, there is no established screening strategy to identify Lynch syndrome in this population. The objective of this study was to assess whether the 4-item brief Family History Questionnaire can be used as a screening tool to identify women with ovarian cancer at risk of Lynch syndrome.MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, participants with newly diagnosed non-serous, non-mucinous ovarian cancer completed the brief Family History Questionnaire, extended Family History Questionnaire, and had tumors assessed with immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins, MLH1 methylation, and microsatellite instability testing. All underwent universal germline testing for Lynch syndrome. Performance characteristics were compared between the brief Family History Questionnaire, extended Family History Questionnaire, immunohistochemistry±MLH1 methylation, and microsatellite instability testing.ResultsOf 215 participants, 169 (79%) were evaluable with both the brief Family History Questionnaire and germline mutation status; 12 of these 169 were confirmed to have Lynch syndrome (7%). 10 of 12 patients (83%) with Lynch syndrome were correctly identified by the brief Family History Questionnaire, compared with 6 of 11 (55%) by the extended Family History Questionnaire, 11 of 13 (85%) by immunohistochemistry±MLH1 methylation, and 9 of 11 (82%) by microsatellite instability testing. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of the brief Family History Questionnaire were 83%, 65%, 15%, and 98%, respectively. A combined approach with immunohistochemistry and the brief Family History Questionnaire correctly identified all 12 patients with Lynch syndrome. The brief Family History Questionnaire was more sensitive than the extended Family History Questionnaire and took <10 min for each patient to complete.ConclusionsThe brief Family History Questionnaire alone or combined with immunohistochemistry may serve as an adequate screening strategy, especially in centers without access to universal tumor testing.

Case-finding and genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care

ObjectiveFamilial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common inherited disorder that remains mostly undetected in the general population. Through FH case-finding and direct access to genetic testing in primary care, this intervention study described the genetic and lipid profile of patients found at increased risk of FH and the outcomes in those with positive genetic test results.MethodsIn 14 Central England general practices, a novel case-finding tool (Familial Hypercholetserolaemia Case Ascertainment Tool, FAMCAT1) was applied to the electronic health records of 86 219 patients with cholesterol readings (44.5% of total practices’ population), identifying 3375 at increased risk of FH. Of these, a cohort of 336 consenting to completing Family History Questionnaire and detailed review of their clinical data, were offered FH genetic testing in primary care.ResultsGenetic testing was completed by 283 patients, newly identifying 16 with genetically confirmed FH and 10 with variants of unknown significance. All 26 (9%) were recommended for referral and 19 attended specialist assessment. In a further 153 (54%) patients, the test suggested polygenic hypercholesterolaemia who were managed in primary care. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels were higher in those patients with FH-causing variants than those with other genetic test results (p=0.010 and p=0.002).ConclusionElectronic case-finding and genetic testing in primary care could improve identification of FH; and the better targeting of patients for specialist assessment. A significant proportion of patients identified at risk of FH are likely to have polygenic hypercholesterolaemia. There needs to be a clearer management plan for these individuals in primary care.Trial registration numberNCT03934320.

Clinical outcomes and associated predictors of early intervention in autism spectrum disorder: a study protocol

IntroductionResearch highlights the importance of early intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder with better outcomes associated with earlier access to early intensive intervention (EII) programmes. However, there is significant variability in response to EII despite children receiving the same programmes.Methods and analysisA prospective, multisite cohort study using a pre–post design assesses the predictors of early intervention outcomes for children who receive EII through six early intervention services (Autism Specific Early Learning and Care Centres, ASELCCs) across Australia. Child and family characteristics at entry to and exit from ASELCCs are ascertained using measures of autism symptoms (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2; Social Communication Questionnaire); cognitive, language and developmental skills (Mullen Scale of Early Learning); adaptive function (Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale—second Edition); behaviours (Child Behaviour Checklist—1.5 to 5 years; Restricted Repetitive Behaviour Scale); parental stress (Parent Stress Index-4 Short Form); quality of life (Quality of Life in Autism Scale) and a semistructured family history questionnaire for sociodemographic, family and psychosocial characteristics. Characteristics at entry are used as predictors of outcome at exit following EII approximately 12 months later. The change in score from baseline to exit will be the primary outcome of interest. The mediating role of family and psychosocial factors will also be considered.Ethics approvalUniversity of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC14267).Dissemination of resultsFindings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. A report summarising data and the interpretation of data will be published.

Performance characteristics of brief family history questionnaire to screen for Lynch syndrome in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancers.

e22525 Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the third most common Lynch syndrome (LS)-associated cancer in women but there is no established screening strategy to identify LS in this population. An adequate family history may identify patients suspected of LS, prompting a referral to genetic assessment. We have previously validated the 4-item brief Family History Questionnaire (bFHQ) in endometrial cancers. The objective of this study was to assess whether bFHQ can be used as a screening tool to identify women with OC at risk of LS. Methods: Prospective cohort study recruited women with newly diagnosed non-serous/non-mucinous OC from three cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Participants completed bHFQ, extended Family History Questionnaire (eFHQ; encompassing Amsterdam II criteria, Society of Gynecologic Oncology 20-25% criteria and Ontario Ministry of Health criteria), immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins and universal germline testing for LS. The performance characteristics were compared between bFHQ, eFHQ, and IHC. Results: Of 215 participants, 169 (79%) were evaluable with both bFHQ and germline mutation status; 12 of these 169 were confirmed to have LS (7%). Nine of 12 patients (75%) with LS were correctly identified by bFHQ, compared to 6 of 11 (55%) by eFHQ and 11 of 13 (85%) by IHC. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values and negative predictive values of bFHQ were 75%, 66%, 15% and 98%, compared to 55%, 92%, 35% and 96% for eFHQ and 85%, 90%, 39% and 99% for IHC respectively. IHC was the most sensitive and specific approach. The 4-item bFHQ was more sensitive than eFHQ and took less than 10 minutes for each patient to complete. Conclusions: Patient-administered bFHQ may serve as an adequate screening tool to triage women with OC for further genetic assessment for LS, especially in centers without access to universal tumor testing for IHC for MMR.[Table: see text]

658 An Audit of Frequency of Cancer Genetics Referral in Patients with a Family History of Colorectal Cancer

Introduction Guidelines on the management of hereditary colorectal cancers were updated in 2019. In this study, data from patients within the colonoscopy surveillance programme for hereditary cancer at York Teaching Hospitals Trust were analysed to assess category of risk and appropriateness of referrals to regional geneticists. Method After examination of electronic records and clinical notes, patients were assigned a risk category of average, moderate or high according to the Amsterdam criteria and latest BSG/ACPGBI/UKCGG guidelines. Patients were then assessed to see if a concurrent referral had been made to the regional cancer genetic services. Results There were 228 patients. 72(31.6%) patients were in the average, 81(35.5%) in the moderate and 41(18%) were in the high-risk category. 34 (14.9%) patients with insufficient data and/or assessments were in the indeterminate category. 18 of 72 (25%) patients with average risk were unnecessarily referred to the regional genetics team, while 5/41(12%) of high-risk patients were not. A large proportion of patients with insufficient data (19/34, 55.8%) were rightly or wrongly, referred to the regional genetics team. Conclusions Assessment of hereditary cancer risk is difficult in the absence of good quality information. Risk assessment may be improved with use of a dedicated family history questionnaire/template - this facilitates identification of high-risk patients that benefit most from referral to geneticists.