LaDuca Holly, McFarland Rachel, Gutierrez Stephanie, Yussuf Amal, Ho Nadia, Pepper Jonathan, Reineke Patrick, Cain Taylor, Blanco Kirsten, Horton Carolyn, Dolinsky Jill S
Holly LaDuca, Stephanie Gutierrez, Amal Yussuf, Nadia Ho, Jonathan Pepper, Patrick Reineke, Kirsten Blanco, Carolyn Horton, Jill S. Dolinsky, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo; Rachel McFarland, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA; and Taylor Cain, Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, NY.
JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018 Dec;2:1-11. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00014.
Clinical history data reported on test requisition forms (TRFs) for hereditary cancer multigene panel testing (MGPT) are routinely used by genetic testing laboratories. More recently, publications have incorporated TRF-based clinical data into studies exploring yield of testing by phenotype and estimating cancer risks for mutation carriers. We aimed to assess the quality of TRF data for patients undergoing MGPT.
Ten percent of patients who underwent hereditary cancer MGPT between January and June 2015 at a clinical laboratory were randomly selected. TRF-reported cancer diagnoses were evaluated for completeness and accuracy for probands and relatives using clinical documents such as pedigrees and chart notes as the comparison standard in cases where these documents were submitted after the time of test order.
TRF-reported cancer sites and ages at diagnosis were complete for > 90.0% of proband cancer diagnoses overall, and the completion rate was even higher (> 96.0%) for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and uterine cancers. When reported, these data were accurate on TRFs for > 99.5% of proband cancer sites and > 97.5% of proband ages at diagnosis. Cancer site and age at diagnosis data were also complete on the TRF for the majority of cancers among first- and second-degree relatives. Completeness decreased as relation to the proband became more distant, whereas accuracy remained high across all degrees of relation.
Data collected as part of cancer genetic risk assessment is completely and accurately reported on TRFs for the majority of probands and their close relatives and is comparable to information directly obtained from clinic notes, particularly for breast and other cancers commonly associated with hereditary cancer syndromes.
遗传性癌症多基因检测(MGPT)的检测申请表(TRF)上报告的临床病史数据通常被基因检测实验室使用。最近,一些出版物已将基于TRF的临床数据纳入到按表型探索检测收益以及估计突变携带者癌症风险的研究中。我们旨在评估接受MGPT检测的患者的TRF数据质量。
随机选取了2015年1月至6月在一家临床实验室接受遗传性癌症MGPT检测的患者中的10%。对于先证者及其亲属,以系谱和病历记录等临床文件作为比较标准,评估TRF报告的癌症诊断的完整性和准确性,这些文件在检测医嘱下达后提交。
总体而言,超过90.0%的先证者癌症诊断中,TRF报告的癌症部位和诊断年龄是完整的,对于乳腺癌、卵巢癌、结直肠癌和子宫癌,完成率更高(>96.0%)。当这些数据被报告时,TRF上先证者癌症部位的准确率超过99.5%,先证者诊断年龄的准确率超过97.5%。一级和二级亲属中大多数癌症的癌症部位和诊断年龄数据在TRF上也完整。随着与先证者关系的疏远,完整性降低,而在所有亲属关系程度中准确性仍然很高。
作为癌症遗传风险评估一部分收集的数据,在TRF上被完整且准确地报告给大多数先证者及其近亲,并且与直接从临床记录中获得的信息相当,特别是对于乳腺癌和其他通常与遗传性癌症综合征相关的癌症。