2008Diseases of the Colon & RectumRequires access

Identifying Lynch Syndrome: We Are All Responsible

Julian Sanchez, Jon D. Vogel, Matthew F. Kalady, Mary P. Bronner, Marek Skacel, James M. Church

Open publisher page 24 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Amsterdam criteria and Bethesda guidelines are used to identify patients with Lynch syndrome. A family history of Lynch syndrome-related cancers or histopathology suggestive of microsatellite instability should prompt responses by the pathologist and clinician. This study evaluated the impact of microsatellite instability pathology findings on Lynch syndrome evaluation by clinicians. METHODS: Microsatellite unstable tumors were identified from a maintained tissue bank, and MLH1 methylation was determined. Clinical information and management recommendations by the pathologist and clinician were collected from the medical record. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with microsatellite unstable colorectal tumors were identified between 2003 and 2006. Thirteen (25 percent) patients were appropriately referred for additional testing, including eight with documented microsatellite instability histology and five based on history alone. Thirty-seven (73 percent) patients with microsatellite unstable tumors were not detected by pathologists or clinicians, and no additional workup for Lynch syndrome was performed. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria and represent potentially missed Lynch syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Microsatellite instability-H histology was the driving force for the Lynch syndrome evaluation. Histopathology alone failed to identify all potential Lynch syndrome patients. Omission of an adequate familial risk assessment may lead to missed diagnosis of Lynch syndrome when suspicious histopathology fails to trigger appropriate testing.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: The Amsterdam criteria and Bethesda guidelines are used to identify patients with Lynch syndrome. A family history of Lynch syndrome-related cancers or histopathology suggestive of microsatellite instability should prompt responses by the pathologist and clinician. This study evaluated the impact of microsatellite instability pathology findings on Lynch syndrome evaluation by clinicians. METHODS: Microsatellite unstable tumors were identified from a maintained tissue bank, and MLH1 methylation was determined. Clinical information and management recommendations by the pathologist and clinician were collected from the medical record. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with microsatellite unstable colorectal tumors were identified between 2003 and 2006. Thirteen (25 percent) patients were appropriately referred for additional testing, including eight with documented microsatellite instability histology and five based on history alone. Thirty-seven (73 percent) patients with microsatellite unstable tumors were not detected by pathologists or clinicians, and no additional workup for Lynch syndrome was performed. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria and represent potentially missed Lynch syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Microsatellite instability-H histology was the driving force for the Lynch syndrome evaluation. Histopathology alone failed to identify all potential Lynch syndrome patients. Omission of an adequate familial risk assessment may lead to missed diagnosis of Lynch syndrome when suspicious histopathology fails to trigger appropriate testing.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 24 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: The Amsterdam criteria and Bethesda guidelines are used to identify patients with Lynch syndrome. A family history of Lynch syndrome-related cancers or histopathology suggestive of microsatellite instability should prompt responses by the pathologist and clinician. This study evaluated the impact of microsatellite instability pathology findings on Lynch syndrome evaluation by clinicians. METHODS: Microsatellite unstable tumors were identified from a maintained tissue bank, and MLH1 methylation was determined. Clinical information and management recommendations by the pathologist and clinician were collected from the medical record. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with microsatellite unstable colorectal tumors were identified between 2003 and 2006. Thirteen (25 percent) patients were appropriately referred for additional testing, including eight with documented microsatellite instability histology and five based on history alone. Thirty-seven (73 percent) patients with microsatellite unstable tumors were not detected by pathologists or clinicians, and no additional workup for Lynch syndrome was performed. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria and represent potentially missed Lynch syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Microsatellite instability-H histology was the driving force for the Lynch syndrome evaluation. Histopathology alone failed to identify all potential Lynch syndrome patients. Omission of an adequate familial risk assessment may lead to missed diagnosis of Lynch syndrome when suspicious histopathology fails to trigger appropriate testing.

Key concepts: Lynch syndrome, Microsatellite instability, Histopathology, Medicine, Family history, Pathology, Internal medicine, Microsatellite

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Identifying Lynch Syndrome: We Are All Responsible — Research Paper | ScholarLens