Cargando…

Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population

BACKGROUND: Family health history (FHx) is an effective tool for identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Hereditary cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPG) contain criteria used to evaluate FHx and to make recommendations for genetic consultation. Comparing different CPGs used to evalua...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ritchie, Jordon B., Bellcross, Cecelia, Allen, Caitlin G., Frey, Lewis, Morrison, Heath, Schiffman, Joshua D., Welch, Brandon M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8285854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34274008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13053-021-00188-9
_version_ 1783723631594962944
author Ritchie, Jordon B.
Bellcross, Cecelia
Allen, Caitlin G.
Frey, Lewis
Morrison, Heath
Schiffman, Joshua D.
Welch, Brandon M.
author_facet Ritchie, Jordon B.
Bellcross, Cecelia
Allen, Caitlin G.
Frey, Lewis
Morrison, Heath
Schiffman, Joshua D.
Welch, Brandon M.
author_sort Ritchie, Jordon B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Family health history (FHx) is an effective tool for identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Hereditary cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPG) contain criteria used to evaluate FHx and to make recommendations for genetic consultation. Comparing different CPGs used to evaluate a common set of FHx provides insight into how well the CPGs perform, the extent of agreement across guidelines, and how well they identify patients who should consider a cancer genetic consultation. METHODS: We compare the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Networks (NCCN) (2019) CPG criteria for FHx collected by a chatbot and evaluated by ontologies and web services in a previous study. Collected FHx met criteria from seven groups: Gene Mutation, Breast and Ovarian, Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), Colorectal and Endometrial, Relative Meets Criteria, ACMG Only Criteria, and NCCN Testing. CPG Criteria were coded and matched across 12 ACMG sub-guidelines and 6 NCCN sub-guidelines for comparison purposes. RESULTS: The dataset contains 4915 records, of which 2221 met either ACMG or NCCN criteria and 2694 did not. There was significant overlap—1179 probands met both ACMG and NCCN criteria. The greatest similarities were for Gene Mutation and Breast and Ovarian criteria and the greatest disparity existed among Colorectal and Endometrial criteria. Only 156 positive gene mutations were reported and of the 2694 probands who did not meet criteria, 90.6% of them reported at least one cancer in their personal or family cancer history. CONCLUSION: Hereditary cancer CPGs are useful for identifying patients at risk of developing cancer based on FHx. This comparison shows that with the aid of chatbots, ontologies, and web services, CPGs can be more efficiently applied to identify patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Additionally this comparison examines similarities and differences between ACMG and NCCN and shows the importance of using both guidelines when evaluating hereditary cancer risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8285854
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82858542021-07-19 Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population Ritchie, Jordon B. Bellcross, Cecelia Allen, Caitlin G. Frey, Lewis Morrison, Heath Schiffman, Joshua D. Welch, Brandon M. Hered Cancer Clin Pract Research BACKGROUND: Family health history (FHx) is an effective tool for identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Hereditary cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPG) contain criteria used to evaluate FHx and to make recommendations for genetic consultation. Comparing different CPGs used to evaluate a common set of FHx provides insight into how well the CPGs perform, the extent of agreement across guidelines, and how well they identify patients who should consider a cancer genetic consultation. METHODS: We compare the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Networks (NCCN) (2019) CPG criteria for FHx collected by a chatbot and evaluated by ontologies and web services in a previous study. Collected FHx met criteria from seven groups: Gene Mutation, Breast and Ovarian, Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), Colorectal and Endometrial, Relative Meets Criteria, ACMG Only Criteria, and NCCN Testing. CPG Criteria were coded and matched across 12 ACMG sub-guidelines and 6 NCCN sub-guidelines for comparison purposes. RESULTS: The dataset contains 4915 records, of which 2221 met either ACMG or NCCN criteria and 2694 did not. There was significant overlap—1179 probands met both ACMG and NCCN criteria. The greatest similarities were for Gene Mutation and Breast and Ovarian criteria and the greatest disparity existed among Colorectal and Endometrial criteria. Only 156 positive gene mutations were reported and of the 2694 probands who did not meet criteria, 90.6% of them reported at least one cancer in their personal or family cancer history. CONCLUSION: Hereditary cancer CPGs are useful for identifying patients at risk of developing cancer based on FHx. This comparison shows that with the aid of chatbots, ontologies, and web services, CPGs can be more efficiently applied to identify patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Additionally this comparison examines similarities and differences between ACMG and NCCN and shows the importance of using both guidelines when evaluating hereditary cancer risk. BioMed Central 2021-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8285854/ /pubmed/34274008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13053-021-00188-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Ritchie, Jordon B.
Bellcross, Cecelia
Allen, Caitlin G.
Frey, Lewis
Morrison, Heath
Schiffman, Joshua D.
Welch, Brandon M.
Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population
title Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population
title_full Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population
title_fullStr Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population
title_short Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population
title_sort evaluation and comparison of hereditary cancer guidelines in the population
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8285854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34274008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13053-021-00188-9
work_keys_str_mv AT ritchiejordonb evaluationandcomparisonofhereditarycancerguidelinesinthepopulation
AT bellcrosscecelia evaluationandcomparisonofhereditarycancerguidelinesinthepopulation
AT allencaitling evaluationandcomparisonofhereditarycancerguidelinesinthepopulation
AT freylewis evaluationandcomparisonofhereditarycancerguidelinesinthepopulation
AT morrisonheath evaluationandcomparisonofhereditarycancerguidelinesinthepopulation
AT schiffmanjoshuad evaluationandcomparisonofhereditarycancerguidelinesinthepopulation
AT welchbrandonm evaluationandcomparisonofhereditarycancerguidelinesinthepopulation