Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population

Jordon B Ritchie; Cecelia Bellcross; Caitlin G Allen; Lewis Frey; Heath Morrison; Joshua D Schiffman; Brandon M Welch

doi:10.1186/s13053-021-00188-9

Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population

Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2021 Jul 17;19(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13053-021-00188-9.

Authors

Jordon B Ritchie¹, Cecelia Bellcross², Caitlin G Allen², Lewis Frey³, Heath Morrison⁴, Joshua D Schiffman⁵, Brandon M Welch³

Affiliations

¹ Medical University of South Carolina, 22 WestEdge St, Ste 200, Charleston, SC, 29403, USA. ritchiej@musc.edu.
² Emory University, Atlanta, USA.
³ Medical University of South Carolina, 22 WestEdge St, Ste 200, Charleston, SC, 29403, USA.
⁴ ItRunsInMyFamily.com, Charleston, SC, USA.
⁵ University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Clinical practice guidelines; Family health history; Hereditary cancer; Risk assessment.

Abstract

Grants and funding