Skip to main content
Journal of Primary Care & Community Health logoLink to Journal of Primary Care & Community Health
. 2021 May 31;12:21501327211020973. doi: 10.1177/21501327211020973

Feasibility of Utilizing PREMM Score for Lynch Syndrome Identification in an Urban, Minority Patient Population

Brigid Adviento 1, Michael Conner 2,, Alexander Sarkisian 3, Nicolette Walano 3, Hans Andersson 4, Jordan Karlitz 4
PMCID: PMC8170358  PMID: 34053368

Abstract

The PREMM5 model is a web-based clinical prediction algorithm that estimates the gene-specific risk of an individual carrying a Lynch syndrome germline mutation based on targeted family history questions. The objectives of our study were to determine the feasibility of screening for LS in an urban, minority patient population in a primary care setting using the PREMM5 model and characterize patient barriers associated with difficulty completing the questions. Participants were recruited from Tulane Internal Medicine primary care clinics on 9 random collection dates. Our data illustrates the difficulty patients have in recalling important details necessary to answer the PREMM questionnaire.

Keywords: underserved communities, primary care, prevention, health promotion, access to care, community health

Introduction

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC) and affected individuals carry a 50% to 70% lifetime risk of developing CRC.1,2 LS is a defined as a germline mutation in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or the EPCAM gene.3-5 Loss of function in these genes leads to microsatellite instability, 6 which impacts mechanisms of cell growth, apoptosis, and the activity of other MMR genes, leading to increased risk of malignancy in the colon, endometrium, ovaries, stomach, intestines, kidneys, and biliary system.7,8

LS-associated adenocarcinomas in the colon are clinically distinct from sporadic CRC. The adenoma to carcinoma sequence takes place in about 3 years compared to 10 to 15 years in sporadic CRC. 9 The average age of onset is earlier in life, about 45 to 60 years in LS and 69 years in sporadic CRC. 10 Given these characteristics, LS associated adenomas often progress to malignancy before symptoms arise, so early diagnosis is vital not only for management of the initial cancer, but also in reducing the risk of future malignancies in the patient and in their at-risk family members.

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACGE) recommends identification of LS by universal screening of newly diagnosed CRCs for mismatch repair deficiency, or through genetic evaluation of individuals with a family history of LS or who have >5% risk of LS based on prediction models. 11 These recommendations are in accordance with a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer. 12 PREMM5 is a free web-based multivariable logistic regression model that provides gene-specific risk estimates of carrying an LS mutation based on family history. 13 Individuals are considered to be high risk for LS and eligible for genetic evaluation if they have a risk score greater than 2.5%. PREMM5 has a sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 91%, respectively for MLH1 and MSH2 genes. Sensitivity is lower for MSH6 (74%) and PMS2 (50%). 14

It is important to identify individuals who are high risk for LS because it makes genetic confirmation possible, allowing for further testing of at-risk family members and initiation of recommended cancer surveillance. Current indications for genetic evaluation include immunohistochemistry of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer tumors showing microsatellite instability or immunohistochemistry with deficits in MLH, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2; individuals meeting the Revised Bethesda Guidelines (CRC under the age of 50, tumors with high microsatellite instability, or a family history of LS-associated tumors in 1 first-degree relative or 2 second-degree relatives); endometrial cancer diagnosed under the age of 50; or >5% risk based on prediction screening models, such as PREMM5. 12

Our study investigated whether it would be feasible to screen for LS using PREMM5 in an urban, minority patient population in a primary care setting. We also aimed to characterize patient barriers to completing the PREMM5 questions. To the best of our knowledge, no prior studies have been performed to evaluate the PREMM5 model in an urban primary care setting.

Methods

This was a qualitative cross-sectional study involving a population of primary care patients with scheduled appointments in 2 different University-based outpatient clinics between April 17, 2017 and January 16, 2018. All insured patients >25 years old who arrived for their scheduled appointments during 9 random collection dates were approached to complete the PREMM survey (N = 96). One of the investigators (BA) directly approached subjects after their clinic visits to obtain consent and verbally administer the PREMM5 questionnaire. In addition to the standard family history items within the PREMM survey, the option of “I do not know” was added to each family history question. Participants were also asked if they had difficulty answering the PREMM survey items and individuals who reported difficulty were asked to explain their reasons. Individuals who declined participation were asked the reason for declining, and their responses were recorded.

Results

Of the patients approached, 78 agreed and 18 declined to answer the questionnaire. The most commonly cited reasons for not participating included limited time (38%, n = 7), aversion to signing forms (16.6%, n = 3), or fear of the results (16.6%, n = 3). The 78 participants had a mean age of 62.4 ± 13.9 years, were 56.4% black and 39.7% white, and consisted of 57.7% men and 42.3% women (Table 1). Overall, 28% (n = 23) of patients had at least 1 positive response on the PREMM survey with risk scores ranging from 0.4% to 2.2%. One individual had a positive LS screen, with a risk score 3.2%, but declined further genetic evaluation. The remaining 70% (n = 55) had no positive responses, resulting in no risk score output from PREMM (Table 2). One patient had a personal history of colorectal cancer and another had a personal history of another Lynch syndrome-associated cancer (LSAC). Notably, 23% of participants were “unsure” of at least 1 answer in the PREMM survey; these patients were on average unsure of 2.6 answers. Additionally, 26.9% of patients reported having “difficulty” filling out the survey. Reported reasons for difficulty included being uncertain of their family’s medical history in general, being unsure of the cancer type in family members known to have a cancer history, and uncertainty about medical history in second degree relatives.

Table 1.

Study Participants.

Category % (n = 96)
Sex
 Male 57.7
 Female 42.3
Age
 25-35 6.4
 36-45 9
 46-55 9
 56-65 29.5
 66-75 32.1
 76+ 12.8
Race
 Black 56.4
 White 39.7
 Other 3.9

Table 2.

Results of PREMM Survey + Additional Questions.

Number of cancers N %
Personal hx of LSAC
 CRC 1 1.28
 EC 0 0.00
 Other LSAC 1 1.28
First degree relative with LSAC
 CRC 1 4 5.13
2 or more 0 0.00
Unsure 3 3.85
 EC 1 4 5.13
2 or more 0 0.00
Unsure 6 7.69
 Other LSAC Yes 3 3.85
Unsure 2 2.56
Second degree relative with LSAC
 CRC 1 4 5.13
2 or more 0 0.00
Unsure 15 19.23
 EC 1 1 1.28
2 or more 0 0.00
Unsure 11 14.10
 Other LSAC Yes 8 10.26
Unsure 10 12.82

Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; EC, endometrial cancer; LSAC, lynch syndrome associated cancer.

Discussion

Current guidelines recommend initiating screening colonoscopy for LS positive individuals at 25 years old and repeat colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years. This requires identifying high-risk individuals who should undergo diagnostic genetic testing. There are several screening tools to identify high-risk patients, but each tool depends on the patient’s knowledge of his or her family history of LSACs. Given that 23% of our participants were unsure of at least 1 question, our data illustrates the difficulty that primary care patients may have in recalling important details necessary to stratify their risk of having LS.

A large portion of our population had difficulty completing PREMM5. Common reasons for difficulty included uncertainty about the presence of cancer in second degree relatives and uncertainty about types of cancer in first and second degree relatives. Lack of information availability is a barrier to utilizing PREMM5 and other screening tools for detecting LS in primary care settings. Harty et al assessed the feasibility of implementing a colorectal cancer risk assessment tool (CRISP-P) into a primary care clinic, and also found high rates of uncertainty when completing the questionnaire in a primary care setting. They found that while 90% of patients agreed to complete the questionnaire, 41% were unable to answer all questions independently due to difficulties with language and health literacy. 15 Similarly, Pieper et al 16 found that primary care patients who completed a 3-question colorectal cancer screening tool later reported that they had answered at least 1 of the questions inaccurately. This indicates that the level of detail necessary to identify high-risk patients may not be immediately available in a primary care setting. One limitation in our study is that we do not have information about educational levels or primary language of study participants and therefore cannot determine the potential impact of these factors on patient’s ability to complete questionnaire items. Patients who are older, without higher education, or who have English as a second language may be more likely to have needed assistance as was the case with the study by Harty et al. 15

Another possible reason for patient difficulty is the older age of our population. Colorectal cancer screening may have been less common in their parents or grandparents, resulting in lower likelihood of a known diagnosis or cause of death in first and second degree relatives of this patient population.

Our study showed that the majority of primary care patients were open to completing PREMM5 after their clinic visits. Response rates in our population were similar to Harty et al 15 who had 90% participation. However, other studies implementing cancer risk assessment tools into primary care settings had much lower participation rates, ranging from 15% to 25%.16,17 Our high participation rates may be skewed by chance, given our small sample size, but it is also possible that in-person recruitment strategies improved patient participation as was noted in prior studies. 17

Several patients also refused the questionnaire due to time restraints. Primary care visits often entail multiple competing health issues to be discussed within a limited time period, perhaps making it difficult to devote substantial time to screening for 1 potential disease if the patient or physician do not already perceive the patient to be at an elevated risk. Since time of visit was not recorded during data collection, it is unclear whether this was influenced by the time of day during which appointments were scheduled.

Luba et al 18 studied the PREMM1,2,6 model in a community gastroenterology office and concluded that a patient self-administered version of the model could effectively be used to screen at-risk individuals in the outpatient setting. By contacting patients prior to their appointment and reviewing portions of the questionnaire, this study was likely able to improve participant completion of questions about their family history of LSAC. It is also possible that implementation in a subspecialty clinic, rather than primary care clinic, increases the probability that participants were higher risk for colorectal cancer, which has been shown to increase accuracy in answering colorectal cancer screening questions. 16 In contrast to our study, Luba et al did not report on the percentage of patients that were unsure of certain questions or had difficulty completing the questionnaire, so it is uncertain whether questionnaires were completed accurately. In addition, Luba et al did not report why 17.5% of eligible participants declined genetic testing. 18 By further investigating these questions in our study, we have addressed additional barriers to obtaining a final diagnosis of LS.

One subject screened positive for LS with a risk score 3.2%, but declined further genetic evaluation. Based on the positive screen, this individual was offered further evaluation with a genetic counselor but declined. Although we cannot draw conclusions about genetic counseling uptake due to our limited sample, there is evidence that even individuals aware of their cancer risk choose not to pursue genetic evaluation or do not receive accurate genetic testing recommendations from their providers.19,20

Although these results are limited by the small sample size of this study and this is only a single site study, our study demonstrates that unavailability of information needed for the PREMM5 model can limit its utility in the primary care setting. Even with high questionnaire completion rates, the accuracy of questionnaire data is likely limited by patients’ knowledge of a detailed family history or patient difficulty with questionnaire items, perhaps due to low health literacy. Further work would be needed to determine if interventions such as asking patients to gather a detailed family history prior to their visit would increase the yield of the in-office questionnaire. In addition, possibly further educating patients on the epidemiology of LS associated malignancies would increase their desire to complete these questions.

Footnotes

Author Roles: Brigid Adviento, MD, MPH: study concept and design, acquisition of data, statistical analysis, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript. Michael Conner, MD: drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Alexander Sarkisian, MD: study concept and design, drafting of the manuscript. Nicolette Walano, MS, CGC: study concept and design. Hans Andersson, MD: study concept and design. Jordan Karlitz, MD: study concept and design, study supervision.

Article Guarantor: Jordan Karlitz, MD.

Prior Presentations of the Report: Adviento B, Sarkisian AM, Walano N, Andersson HC, Karlitz J. Feasibility of Utilizing PREMM Score For Lynch Syndrome Identification in an Urban, Minority Patient Population. Poster session presented at: Familial Cancer Syndromes and Cancer Genetics Poster Session, Digestive Disease Week Conference; 2019 May 18 to 21; San Diego, CA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors whose names are listed immediately above certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. For our pilot study, there was no funding support or any potential author competing interests.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Informed Consent: Every patient involved in this study completed an informed consent prior to completing the questionnaire. All patient identifiers have been removed from the pilot study.

References

  • 1. Jang E, Chung DC. Hereditary colon cancer: lynch syndrome. Gut Liver. 2010;4:151-160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Moreira L, Balaguer F, Lindor N, et al. Identification of Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2012;308:1555-1565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Sinicrope FA. Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:764-773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Ligtenberg MJL, Kuiper RP, Chan TL, et al. Heritable somatic methylation and inactivation of MSH2 in families with Lynch syndrome due to deletion of the 3′ exons of TACSTD1. Nat Genet. 2009;41:112-117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Lynch HT, Snyder CL, Shaw TG, Heinen CD, Hitchins MP. Milestones of Lynch syndrome: 1895-2015. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015;15:181-194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Thibodeau SN, Bren G, Schaid D. Microsatellite instability in cancer of the proximal colon. Science. 1993;260:816-819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Watson P, Vasen HFA, Mecklin JP, et al. The risk of extra-colonic, extra-endometrial cancer in the Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:444-449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Baglietto L, Lindor NM, Dowty JG, et al. Risks of Lynch syndrome cancers for MSH6 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:193-201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Møller P, Seppälä T, Bernstein I, et al. Incidence of and survival after subsequent cancers in carriers of pathogenic MMR variants with previous cancer: a report from the prospective Lynch syndrome database. Gut. 2017;66:1657-1664. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S, et al. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2011;305:2304-2310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, et al. ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:223-262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE, et al. Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the us multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:502-526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kastrinos F, Uno H, Ukaegbu C, et al. Development and validation of the PREMM5 model for comprehensive risk assessment of lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2165-2172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Goverde A, Spaander MCW, Nieboer D, et al. Evaluation of current prediction models for Lynch syndrome: updating the PREMM5 model to identify PMS2 mutation carriers. Fam Cancer. 2018;17:361-370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Harty EC, McIntosh JG, Bickerstaffe A, Hewabandu N, Emery JD. The CRISP-P study: feasibility of a self-completed colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in primary care. Fam Pract. 2019;36:730-735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Pieper C, Kolankowska I, Jöckel KH. Does a screening questionnaire for familial and hereditary colorectal cancer risk work in a health insurance population? Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012;21:758-765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Walker JG, Licqurish S, Chiang P, Pirotta M, Emery JD. Cancer risk assessment tools in primary care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13:480-489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Luba DG, DiSario JA, Rock C, et al. Community practice implementation of a self-administered version of PREMM1,2,6 to assess risk for lynch syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:49-58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Patel SG, Ahnen DJ, Kinney AY, et al. Knowledge and uptake of genetic counseling and colonoscopic screening among individuals at increased risk for lynch syndrome and their endoscopists from the family health promotion project. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:285-293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Niendorf KB, Geller MA, Vogel RI, et al. A model for patient-direct screening and referral for familial cancer risk. Fam Cancer. 2016;15:707-716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Primary Care & Community Health are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES