A220 SCREENING AND MANAGEMENT OF LYNCH SYNDROME IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Risk factors for developing colorectal cancer (CRC) at an earlier age include familial risk and hereditary conditions such as Lynch Syndrome (LS). Recently, universal screening for LS has been recommended by several expert groups, suggesting that every new (or age <70) CRC diagnostic sample should undergo mismatch repair immunohistochemistry (MMR-IHC) and/or microsatellite instability (MSI) screening. For patients with LS, surveillance colonoscopy markedly reduces the risk of developing new CRC. The 2015 American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Guidelines recommend that these individuals should undergo colonoscopy every 1–2 years, beginning at age 20–25. Current Canadian guidelines, however, have not yet recommended: 1) which patients should undergo testing; and 2) the optimal surveillance for patients known to have LS. (1) To determine the current practice of identifying LS in the US and Canada, and current surveillance and management practices for those diagnosed with LS; (2) To determine variances in current practice and whether they are physician/region dependent or influenced by ease of access to specialist clinics. An online survey request was sent to practicing gastroenterologists through the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and ACG. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the factors associated with testing for LS and separately for follow-up, surveillance and management. A total of 239 participants were recruited, of which 232 were gastroenterologists and included in the analysis. Less than 40% of practicing gastroenterologists indicated that their CRC patients were undergoing screening tests to identify LS. While 42% (N=65) of participants from the US stated that their patients were undergoing universal LS screening, only 9% (N=4) of participants from Canada reported this practice (p<0.001). 83% of respondents had access to a hereditary cancer clinic. There was no statistically significant difference in practice between the physicians that do and do not have access to hereditary clinics (32% testing among those without access to hereditary cancer clinics and 35% among those with access; p=0.450). Appropriate surveillance interval was recommended by most. Overall, LS continues to be an underrecognized condition, resulting in missed opportunities for preventing CRC and other Lynch associated cancers. There is a significant difference in practice between Canada and the US in regard to identification of LS, with suboptimal practice throughout North America. There is ample opportunity for improving recognition of LS through appropriate education and resource management. None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».