Modified capture–recapture estimates of the number of families with Lynch syndrome in Central Ohio
Past methods for estimating the population frequency of familial cancer syndromes have used cases and controls ignoring the familial nature of genetic disease. In this study we modified the capture–recapture method from ecology to estimate the number of families in central Ohio with Lynch syndrome (LS). We screened 1566 colorectal cancer cases and 545 endometrial cancer cases in central Ohio from 1999 to 2005 and identified 58 with LS. We screened an additional 3346 colorectal and 342 endometrial cancer cases from 2013 to 2016 and identified 149 with LS. We found 12 LS mutations shared between families observed in the first and second studies. We identified three individuals between studies who were closely related and eight who were more distantly related. We used identified family relationships and genetic test results to estimate family size and structure. Applying a modified capture–recapture method we estimate 1693 3-generation families in the area who have 288 unique LS causing mutations. Comprehensive colorectal and endometrial cancer screening will take about 20 years to identify 50% of families with LS. This is the first time that the capture–recapture method has been applied to estimate the burden of families with a specific heritable disease. Family structure reveals the potential extent of prevention and the time necessary to identify a proportion of families with LS.
KeywordsMark–recapture Capture–recapture Population genetics Population structure Cascade testing Genetic counseling Prevalence Lynch syndrome
The Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative is supported by Pelotonia, http://pelotonia.org/. Brian Shirts and John Ranola are supported by Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (DRR-33-15) and by development funds from the Fred Hutch/University of Washington Cancer Consortium (NCI 5P30 CA015704-39).
- 9.Kohlmann W, Gruber SB (1993) Lynch Syndrome. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA et al (eds) GeneReviews(®). University of Washington, Seattle, SeattleGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J et al (2011) Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 155:69–79. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Shia J, Tang LH, Vakiani E et al (2009) Immunohistochemistry as first-line screening for detecting colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: a 2-antibody panel may be as predictive as a 4-antibody panel. Am J Surg Pathol 33:1639–1645. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181b15aa2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Petersen GJ C (1896) The yearly immigration of young plaice into the Limfjord From the German Sea. Rep Dan Biol Stn 6:1–48Google Scholar
- 20.Lincoln F (1930) Calculating waterfowl abundance on the basis of banding returns. US Dept Agric Circ 118:1–4Google Scholar
- 22.Chapman DG (1951) Some properties of the hypergeometric distribution with applications to zoological sample censuses. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- 29.Cancer of the Colon and Rectum - Cancer Stat Facts. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html. Accessed 28 Sept 2017
- 31.U.S. Census Ohio Population. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/OH/PST045216. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/OH/PST045216. Accessed 28 Sept 2017
- 35.McCrea RS, Morgan BJT (2015) Analysis of capture–recapture data, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 36.Perez-Carbonell L, Ruiz-Ponte C, Guarinos C et al (2012) Comparison between universal molecular screening for Lynch syndrome and revised Bethesda guidelines in a large population-based cohort of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut 61:865–872. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Marquez E, Geng Z, Pass S et al (2013) Implementation of routine screening for Lynch syndrome in university and safety-net health system settings: successes and challenges. Genet Med 18:45Google Scholar