4.2 Article

Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer Position statement on multigene panel testing for patients with colorectal cancer and/or polyposis

Journal

FAMILIAL CANCER
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 223-239

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10689-020-00170-9

Keywords

Inherited colorectal cancer; Lynch syndrome; Multigene panel testing; Next-generation sequencing; Polyposis; Position statement

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA220329] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer syndromes are increasingly utilized in the care of colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyposis patients. However, widespread availability of panels raises a number of questions including which patients should undergo testing, which genes should be included on panels, and the settings in which panels should be ordered and interpreted. To address this knowledge gap, key questions regarding the major issues encountered in clinical evaluation of hereditary CRC and polyposis were designed by the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer Position Statement Committee and leadership. A literature search was conducted to address these questions. Recommendations were based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. This position statement addresses which genes should be included on a multigene panel for a patient with a suspected hereditary CRC or polyposis syndrome, proposes updated genetic testing criteria, discusses testing approaches for patients with mismatch repair proficient or deficient CRC, and outlines the essential elements for ordering and disclosing multigene panel test results. We acknowledge that critical gaps in access, insurance coverage, resources, and education remain barriers to high-quality, equitable care for individuals and their families at increased risk of hereditary CRC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available