A tumor focused approach to resolving the etiology of DNA mismatch repair deficient tumors classified as suspected Lynch syndrome.

Routine screening of tumors for DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (dMMR) in colorectal (CRC), endometrial (EC) and sebaceous skin (SST) tumors leads to a significant proportion of unresolved cases classified as suspected Lynch syndrome (SLS). SLS cases (n = 135) were recruited from Family Cancer Clinics across Australia and New Zealand. Targeted panel sequencing was performed on tumor (n = 137; 80×CRCs, 33×ECs and 24xSSTs) and matched blood-derived DNA to assess for microsatellite instability status, tumor mutation burden, COSMIC tumor mutational signatures and to identify germline and somatic MMR gene variants. MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MLH1 promoter methylation were repeated. In total, 86.9% of the 137 SLS tumors could be resolved into established subtypes. For 22.6% of these resolved SLS cases, primary MLH1 epimutations (2.2%) as well as previously undetected germline MMR pathogenic variants (1.5%), tumor MLH1 methylation (13.1%) or false positive dMMR IHC (5.8%) results were identified. Double somatic MMR gene mutations were the major cause of dMMR identified across each tumor type (73.9% of resolved cases, 64.2% overall, 70% of CRC, 45.5% of ECs and 70.8% of SSTs). The unresolved SLS tumors (13.1%) comprised tumors with only a single somatic (7.3%) or no somatic (5.8%) MMR gene mutations. A tumor-focused testing approach reclassified 86.9% of SLS into Lynch syndrome, sporadic dMMR or MMR-proficient cases. These findings support the incorporation of tumor sequencing and alternate MLH1 methylation assays into clinical diagnostics to reduce the number of SLS patients and provide more appropriate surveillance and screening recommendations.

A prospective prostate cancer screening programme for men with pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes (IMPACT): initial results from an international prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer.

Room for improvement: One third of Lynch syndrome patients presenting for genetic testing in a highly specialised centre in Stockholm already have cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is caused by germline mutations in the mismatch repair genes and is characterised by a familial accumulation of colorectal and other cancers. Earlier identification of Lynch syndrome patients enables surveillance and might reduce the risk of cancer. It is important to explore whether today's clinical care discovers patients with Lynch syndrome suitable for surveillance in time. This study aimed to describe what led to a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome in the cohort referred to the Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden for gastrointestinal surveillance. METHODS: This was a descriptive study. Data from 1975 to 2018 were collected and compiled as a database. Age at diagnosis was calculated from the date when a pathogenic MMR gene mutation was confirmed, from the period June 1994-September 2018. Data were collected from patient protocols prospectively during patient consultations and medical records retrospectively. Criteria for inclusion were registration at the outpatient clinic and a confirmed mismatch repair gene mutation. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were eligible for inclusion. Three major reasons for diagnosis were identified: 1. Predictive testing of a previously known mutation in the family (62%, mean age 37), 2. A family history of Lynch associated tumours (9%, mean age 37), 3. A diagnosis of cancer (29%, mean age 51). The proportion diagnosed due to cancer has not changed over time. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of patients (29%) were identified with Lynch syndrome after they had been diagnosed with an associated cancer, which suggests that there is significant room for improvement in the diagnosis of patients with Lynch syndrome before cancer develops.

Assessment of genetic referrals and outcomes for women with triple negative breast cancer in regional cancer centres in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for referral to cancer genetics service for women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer have changed over time. This study was conducted to assess the changing referral patterns and outcomes for women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer across three regional cancer centres during the years 2014-2018. METHODS: Following ethical approval, a retrospective electronic medical record review was performed to identify those women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, and whether they were referred to a genetics service and if so, the outcome of that genetics assessment and/or genetic testing. RESULTS: There were 2441 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer seen at our cancer services during the years 2014-2018, of whom 237 women were diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer. Based on age of diagnosis criteria alone, 13% (31/237) of our cohort fulfilled criteria for genetic testing, with 81% (25/31) being referred to a cancer genetics service. Of this group 68% (21/31) were referred to genetics services within our regions and went on to have genetic testing with 10 pathogenic variants identified; 5x BRCA1, 4x BRCA2 and × 1 ATM:c.7271 T > G. CONCLUSIONS: Referral pathways for women diagnosed with TNBC to cancer genetics services are performing well across our cancer centres. We identified a group of women who did not meet eligibility criteria for referral at their time of diagnosis, but would now be eligible, as guidelines have changed. The use of cross-discipline retrospective data reviews is a useful tool to identify patients who could benefit from being re-contacted over time for an updated cancer genetics assessment.

Significant detection of new germline pathogenic variants in Australian Pancreatic Cancer Screening Program participants.

BACKGROUND: The Australian Pancreatic Cancer Screening Program (APCSP) offers endoscopic ultrasound surveillance for individuals at increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with all participants requiring assessment by a Familial Cancer Service before or after study enrolment. METHODS: Individuals aged 40-80 years (or 10 years younger than the earliest PDAC diagnosis) were eligible for APCSP study entry if they had 1) ≥ two blood relatives with PDAC (at least one of first-degree association); 2) a clinical or genetic diagnosis of Hereditary Pancreatitis or Peutz-Jeghers syndrome irrespective of PDAC family history; or 3) a known PDAC predisposition germline pathogenic variant (BRCA2, PALB2, CDKN2A, or Lynch syndrome) with ≥one PDAC-affected first- or second-degree relative. Retrospective medical record review was conducted for APCSP participants enrolled at the participating Australian hospitals from January 2011 to December 2019. We audited the genetic investigations offered by multiple Familial Cancer Services who assessed APCSP participants according to national guidelines, local clinical protocol and/or the availability of external research-funded testing, and the subsequent findings. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Of 189 kindreds (285 participants), 50 kindreds (71 participants) had a known germline pathogenic variant at enrolment (BRCA2 n = 35, PALB2 n = 6, CDKN2A n = 3, STK11 n = 3, PRSS1 n = 2, MLH1 n = 1). Forty-eight of 136 (35%) kindreds with no known germline pathogenic variant were offered mutation analysis; 89% was clinic-funded, with increasing self-funded testing since 2016. The relatively low rates of genetic testing performed reflects initial strict criteria for clinic-funded genetic testing. New germline pathogenic variants were detected in five kindreds (10.4%) after study enrolment (BRCA2 n = 3 kindreds, PALB2 n = 1, CDKN2A n = 1). Of note, only eight kindreds were reassessed by a Familial Cancer Service since enrolment, with a further 21 kindreds identified as being suitable for reassessment. CONCLUSION: Germline pathogenic variants associated with PDAC were seen in 29.1% of our high-risk cohort (55/189 kindreds; 82/285 participants). Importantly, 10.4% of kindreds offered genetic testing were newly identified as having germline pathogenic variants, with majority being BRCA2. As genetic testing standards evolve rapidly in PDAC, 5-yearly reassessment of high-risk individuals by Familial Cancer Services is warranted.

Nutritional parameters associated with hospital admissions in patients being treated for head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: This study analysed nutritional parameters (baseline body mass index (BMI), weight changes and enteral nutrition (EN) use, and their association with hospital admissions during radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC)). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients diagnosed with HNC and treated with radiotherapy between October 2012 and April 2014 was conducted. Data on each subject's diagnosis, age, sex, chemotherapy, previous surgery, EN use, weight changes, and BMI were examined for their association with hospital admissions during treatment. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were included, mean age (±standard deviation) = 61 (± 11 years). Thirty-four percent had self-reported weight loss at diagnosis, and mean BMI was 26.2 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Mean weight change during treatment was - 5.1 ± 6.2%. Ten patients used EN, with mean weight stabilisation during EN use (0.3 ± 5.1%). Higher presenting BMI, younger age, and definitive radiotherapy ± chemotherapy predicted greater weight loss (p < 0.05). Critical weight loss ≥ 5% was associated with a higher number of hospital admissions for nutrition reasons (n = 10) (p = 0.011) compared with those without critical weight loss (n = 2). EN use was associated with a higher number of nutrition-related admissions; however, it did not predict length of stay among those admitted. CONCLUSION: Critical weight loss during radiotherapy was associated with unplanned nutrition-related hospital admissions. Higher BMI was associated with greater weight loss during radiotherapy, whilst EN use assisted in weight preservation. Further research around patient selection for nutritional interventions aimed at preventing critical weight loss and unplanned hospital admissions is needed.

Celebrating the career and contributions of Dr Henry T. Lynch (1928-2019).

This article celebrates the career of Dr Henry Lynch and his contributions to cancer genetics through his extensive research, clinical practice and his passion for personalising care by using a patient's genetic profile to determine management and treatment. Dr Lynch's contributions were momentous and continue to have relevance to medical practice, in particular in the fields of clinical genetics, medical oncology and gastroenterology.

Genetic counselling and personalised risk assessment in the Australian pancreatic cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is an aggressive disease with a dismal 5-year survival rate. Surveillance of high-risk individuals is hoped to improve survival outcomes by detection of precursor lesions or early-stage malignancy. METHODS: Since 2011, a national high-risk cohort recruited through St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, has undergone prospective PC screening incorporating annual endoscopic ultrasound, formal genetic counselling and mutation analysis as appropriate. PancPRO, a Bayesian PC risk assessment model, was used to estimate 5-year and lifetime PC risks for familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) participants and this was compared to their perceived chance of pancreatic and other cancers. Genetic counselling guidelines were developed to improve consistency. Follow-up questionnaires were used to assess the role of genetic counselling and testing. RESULTS: We describe the Australian PC screening program design and recruitment strategy and the results of the first 102 individuals who have completed at least one-year of follow-up. Seventy-nine participants met the FPC criteria (≥ two first-degree relatives affected), 22 individuals had both a BRCA2 pathogenic variant and a close relative with PC and one had a clinical diagnosis of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Participants reported a high perceived chance of developing PC regardless of their genetic testing status. PancPRO reported FPC participants' mean 5-year and lifetime PC risks as 1.81% (range 0.2-3.2%) and 10.17% (range 2.4-14.4%), respectively. Participants' perceived PC chance did not correlate with their PancPRO 5-year (r = - 0.17, p = 0.128) and lifetime PC risks (r = 0.19, p = 0.091). Two-thirds felt that current genetic testing would help them, and 91% of tested participants were glad to have undergone genetic testing. Overall, 79% of participants found genetic counselling to be helpful, and 88% reported they would recommend counselling to their relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported multiple benefits of genetic counselling and testing but continue to seek greater clarification about their individual PC risk. Extension of PancPRO is required to enable personalised PC risk assessment for all high-risk sub-groups. More detailed discussion of PC risk for BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers, providing a written summary in all cases and a plan for genetics review were identified as areas for improvement.

When is a mutation not a mutation: the case of the c.594-2A>C splice variant in a woman harbouring another BRCA1 mutation in trans.

Since the identification of BRCA1 there has only ever been described two bi-allelic mutation carriers, one of whom was subsequently shown to be a mono-allelic carrier. The second patient diagnosed with two BRCA1 mutations appears to be accurate but there remain some questions about the missense variant identified in that patient. In this report we have identified a woman who is a bi-allelic mutation carrier of BRCA1 and provide an explanation as to why this patient has a phenotype very similar to that of any mono-allelic mutation carrier. The splice variant identified in this patient appears to be associated with the up-regulation of a BRCA1 splice variant that rescues the lethality of being a double mutant. The consequences of the findings of this report may have implications for mutation interpretation and that could serve as a model for not only BRCA1 but also for other autosomal dominant disorders that are considered as being embryonically lethal.

Clinical and pathologic features of familial pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inherited predisposition to pancreatic cancer contributes significantly to its incidence and presents an opportunity for the development of early detection strategies. The genetic basis of predisposition remains unexplained in a high proportion of patients with familial PC (FPC). METHODS: Clinicopathologic features were assessed in a cohort of 766 patients who had been diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PC). Patients were classified with FPC if they had ≥1 affected first-degree relatives; otherwise, they were classified with sporadic PC (SPC). RESULTS: The prevalence of FPC in this cohort was 8.9%. In FPC families with an affected parent-child pair, 71% in the subsequent generation were 12.3 years younger at diagnosis. Patients with FPC had more first-degree relatives who had an extrapancreatic malignancy (EPM) (42.6% vs 21.2; P<.0001), particularly melanoma and endometrial cancer, but not a personal history of EPM. Patients with SPC were more likely to be active smokers, have higher cumulative tobacco exposure, and have fewer multifocal precursor lesions, but these were not associated with differences in survival. Long-standing diabetes mellitus (>2 years) was associated with poor survival in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: FPC represents 9% of PC, and the risk of malignancy in kindred does not appear to be confined to the pancreas. Patients with FPC have more precursor lesions and include fewer active smokers, but other clinicopathologic factors and outcome are similar to those in patients with SPC. Furthermore, some FPC kindreds may exhibit anticipation. A better understanding of the clinical features of PC will facilitate efforts to uncover novel susceptibility genes and the development of early detection strategies.

When teams disagree: Investigating the incidence and causes of dissent occurring in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings.

AIM: Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) are commonly involved in the care of patients with cancer. How frequently dissent occurs within MDT has not been studied. This study aimed to determine how frequently dissent was documented in cancer MDT meetings at our institution, the reasons for this, and the opinions of MDT members on how dissent should be documented and communicated. METHODS: A retrospective review of records from cancer MDT meetings at our institution from 2016 to 2020 was performed to identify cases where dissent was documented and the reasons for this. MDT members were invited to complete an online survey assessing their perceptions of how frequently dissent occurred, how comfortable they felt voicing dissenting opinions, and their opinions on how dissent should be documented and communicated. RESULTS: Dissent was recorded in 30 of 7737 MDT case discussions (0.39%). The incidence of dissent varied from 0 to 1.2% between cancer streams. The most common reason for dissent involved the role of surgery. 27% of survey respondents felt either very or somewhat uncomfortable voicing dissenting opinions. Only 3% felt that dissent should not be documented, and none that it should not be communicated in some way, although there were wide ranging of views on how this should occur. CONCLUSION: Dissent was rarely documented within cancer MDT meetings at our institution, likely due to underreporting. Measuring the incidence of dissent within an MDT may be a useful performance metric. MDT should develop policies for how dissent should be managed, documented, and communicated.

Adenomas from individuals with pathogenic biallelic variants in the MUTYH and NTHL1 genes demonstrate base excision repair tumour mutational signature profiles similar to colorectal cancers, expanding potential diagnostic and variant classification applications.

Background: Colorectal cancers (CRCs) from people with biallelic germline likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants in MUTYH or NTHL1 exhibit specific single base substitution (SBS) mutational signatures, namely combined SBS18 and SBS36 (SBS18+SBS36), and SBS30, respectively. The aim was to determine if adenomas from biallelic cases demonstrated these mutational signatures at diagnostic levels. Methods: Whole-exome sequencing of FFPE tissue and matched blood-derived DNA was performed on 9 adenomas and 15 CRCs from 13 biallelic MUTYH cases, on 7 adenomas and 2 CRCs from 5 biallelic NTHL1 cases and on 27 adenomas and 26 CRCs from 46 non-hereditary (sporadic) participants. All samples were assessed for COSMIC v3.2 SBS mutational signatures. Results: In biallelic MUTYH cases, SBS18+SBS36 signature proportions in adenomas (mean±standard deviation, 65.6%±29.6%) were not significantly different to those observed in CRCs (76.2%±20.5%, p-value=0.37), but were significantly higher compared with non-hereditary adenomas (7.6%±7.0%, p-value=3.4×10-4). Similarly, in biallelic NTHL1 cases, SBS30 signature proportions in adenomas (74.5%±9.4%) were similar to those in CRCs (78.8%±2.4%) but significantly higher compared with non-hereditary adenomas (2.8%±3.6%, p-value=5.1×10-7). Additionally, a compound heterozygote with the c.1187G>A p.(Gly396Asp) pathogenic variant and the c.533G>C p.(Gly178Ala) variant of unknown significance (VUS) in MUTYH demonstrated high levels of SBS18+SBS36 in four adenomas and one CRC, providing evidence for reclassification of the VUS to pathogenic. Conclusions: SBS18+SBS36 and SBS30 were enriched in adenomas at comparable proportions observed in CRCs from biallelic MUTYH and biallelic NTHL1 cases, respectively. Therefore, testing adenomas may improve the identification of biallelic cases and facilitate variant classification, ultimately enabling opportunities for CRC prevention.

Combined analysis of three Lynch syndrome cohorts confirms the modifying effects of 8q23.3 and 11q23.1 in MLH1 mutation carriers.

Two colorectal cancer (CRC) susceptibility loci have been found to be significantly associated with an increased risk of CRC in Dutch Lynch syndrome (LS) patients. Recently, in a combined study of Australian and Polish LS patients, only MLH1 mutation carriers were found to be at increased risk of disease. A combined analysis of the three data-sets was performed to better define this association. This cohort-study includes three sample populations combined totaling 1,352 individuals from 424 families with a molecular diagnosis of LS. Seven SNPs, from six different CRC susceptibility loci, were genotyped by both research groups and the data analyzed collectively. We identified associations at two of the six CRC susceptibility loci in MLH1 mutation carriers from the combined LS cohort: 11q23.1 (rs3802842, HR = 2.68, p ≤ 0.0001) increasing risk of CRC, and rs3802842 in a pair-wise combination with 8q23.3 (rs16892766) affecting age of diagnosis of CRC (log-rank test; p ≤ 0.0001). A significant difference in the age of diagnosis of CRC of 28 years was observed in individuals carrying three risk alleles compared to those with 0 risk alleles for the pair-wise SNP combination. A trend (due to significance threshold of p ≤ 0.0010) was observed in MLH1 mutation carriers towards an increased risk of CRC for the pair-wise combination (p = 0.002). This study confirms the role of modifier loci in LS. We consider that LS patients with MLH1 mutations would greatly benefit from additional genotyping of SNPs rs3802842 and rs16892766 for personalized risk assessment and a tailored surveillance program.

Stage at diagnosis and colorectal cancer survival in six high-income countries: a population-based study of patients diagnosed during 2000-2007.

BACKGROUND: Large international differences in colorectal cancer survival exist, even between countries with similar healthcare. We investigate the extent to which stage at diagnosis explains these differences. METHODS: Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK were analysed for 313 852 patients diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer during 2000-2007. We compared the distributions of stage at diagnosis. We estimated both stage-specific net survival and the excess hazard of death up to three years after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log-cumulative excess hazard scale. RESULTS: International differences in colon and rectal cancer stage distributions were wide: Denmark showed a distribution skewed towards later-stage disease, while Australia, Norway and the UK showed high proportions of 'regional' disease. One-year colon cancer survival was 67% in the UK and ranged between 71% (Denmark) and 80% (Australia and Sweden) elsewhere. For rectal cancer, one-year survival was also low in the UK (75%), compared to 79% in Denmark and 82-84% elsewhere. International survival differences were also evident for each stage of disease, with the UK showing consistently lowest survival at one and three years. CONCLUSION: Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international differences in colorectal cancer survival, with a more adverse stage distribution contributing to comparatively low survival in Denmark. Differences in stage distribution could arise because of differences in diagnostic delay and awareness of symptoms, or in the thoroughness of staging procedures. Nevertheless, survival differences also exist for each stage of disease, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment, particularly in the UK.

Patients' experiences of referral for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for colorectal cancer patients vary significantly. Compared to other countries, Australia has a good record with patient outcomes, yet there is little information available on the referral pathway. This paper explores the views of Australian patients and their experiences of referral for colorectal cancer treatment following diagnosis; the aim was to improve our understanding of the referral pathway and guide the development of future interventions. METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was used, recruiting 29 patients representing urban and rural areas from 3 Australian states who participated in 4 focus groups. Seven patients provided individual interviews to supplement the data. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, data was coded with NVivo software and analysed thematically before deductive analysis. RESULTS: Four aspects of the referral process were identified by patients, namely detection/diagnosis, referral for initial treatment/specialist care, the roles of the GP/specialist, and the patient's perceived involvement in the process. The referral process was characterised by a lack of patient involvement, with few examples of shared decision-making and few examples of limited choice. However, patients did not always feel they had the knowledge to make informed decisions. Information exchange was highly valued by patients when it occurred, and it increased their satisfaction with the process. Other factors mediating care included the use of the public versus private health system, the quality of information exchange (GP to specialist and GP to patient), continuity of care between GP and specialist, and the extent of information provision when patients moved between specialist and GP care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients described poor GP continuity, ad hoc organisational systems and limited information exchange, at both interpersonal and inter-organisational levels, all leading to sub-optimal care. Implementation of a system of information feedback to GPs and engagement with them might improve information exchange for patients, enabling them to be more involved in improved referral outcomes.