↓ Skip to main content

Improving identification of lynch syndrome patients: A comparison of research data with clinical records

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Cancer, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving identification of lynch syndrome patients: A comparison of research data with clinical records
Published in
International Journal of Cancer, January 2013
DOI 10.1002/ijc.27978
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yen Y. Tan, Julie McGaughran, Kaltin Ferguson, Michael D. Walsh, Daniel D. Buchanan, Joanne P. Young, Penelope M. Webb, Andreas Obermair, Amanda B. Spurdle, on behalf of the ANECS Group

Abstract

Current evidence suggests poor identification and referral of Lynch syndrome patients. This study evaluated the strategies by which patients with endometrial cancer were referred to genetics services. Data from clinic-based patients with endometrial cancer enrolled through the Australian National Endometrial Cancer population-based research study with detailed family history information were analyzed. The Amsterdam II criteria, the revised Bethesda guidelines, and criteria adapted for this study was assessed using personal/family history information. The percentages of patients referred and who could have been referred to genetics services, and the performance of each criterion for identifying possible mismatch-repair (MMR) gene mutation carriers, based on tumor MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), were determined. Research data indicated that 236/397(59%) of patients with endometrial cancer had family/personal history of cancer, including 14 (4%) who fulfilled Amsterdam II criteria. Family history information was noted in the hospital records for only 61(15%) patients, including 7/14 (50%) of patients meeting Amsterdam criteria, and always less extensively than that recorded in the research setting. Only 13 patients (two meeting Amsterdam criteria) were referred for genetic assessment. Of 58 patients with tumor MMR protein-IHC loss, the Amsterdam criteria and Bethesda guidelines identified only three and 34% of these possible germline mutation carriers, respectively. Greater sensitivity (60%) was obtained using a single criterion proposed by our study, ≥2 first-degree or second-degree relatives reporting Lynch cancers. Hospital records indicate poor recognition of family history. Application of research methods show improved identification and may facilitate appropriate referrals of endometrial cancer patients with possible Lynch syndrome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 25%
Other 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Psychology 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2013.
All research outputs
#8,220,458
of 24,629,540 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Cancer
#4,887
of 12,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,985
of 292,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Cancer
#39
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,629,540 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.