Literature DB >> 12404277

Comparison of selection strategies for genetic testing of patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma: effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Carolina M Reyes1, Brian A Allen, Jonathan P Terdiman, Leslie S Wilson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) is becoming standard care and it is cost-effective compared with no genetic testing. However, the best strategy for detection of HNPCC gene carriers is unknown.
METHODS: We use a decision analytic model to evaluate the effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of four commonly used testing strategies to detect HNPCC gene carriers. The model starts with a population of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients and measures costs, the number of gene carriers detected, and incremental costs per gene carrier detected.
RESULTS: We found that germline testing on only those CRC probands who meet the Amsterdam criteria detects the fewest gene carriers and has the lowest cost whereas tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) testing of all CRC patients and families has the highest cost and detects the most gene carriers. When cost-effectiveness is considered, the mixed strategy (MSH2 and MLH1 testing on those who meet the Amsterdam criteria and germline testing for the remainder who meet less stringent modified criteria and are MSI-High) seems superior. The mixed strategy detects 59.6 mutation carriers per 1000 CRC cases and costs much less than the test all strategy, which has an incremental cost-effectiveness of $51,151. The mixed strategy often other strategies and when compared to the Amsterdam strategy, has a cost-effectiveness of only $6441 per gene carrier detected.
CONCLUSIONS: It is not very effective to limit genetic testing to only individuals who meet the Amsterdam criteria, as many gene carriers are missed. However, testing all CRC patients for tumor MSI-H, although effective, may be prohibitively expensive. A mixed strategy is the more cost-effective approach. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12404277     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10910

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  21 in total

1.  Diagnosing Lynch syndrome: is the answer in the mouth?

Authors:  H K Roy; H T Lynch
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Bethesda criteria for microsatellite instability testing: impact on the detection of new cases of Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Miguel Serrano; Pedro Lage; Sara Belga; Bruno Filipe; Inês Francisco; Paula Rodrigues; Ricardo Fonseca; Paula Chaves; Isabel Claro; Cristina Albuquerque; António Dias Pereira
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 3.  Challenges to the translation of genomic information into clinical practice and health policy: Utilization, preferences and economic value.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Su-Ying Liang; Stephanie Van Bebber
Journal:  Curr Opin Mol Ther       Date:  2008-06

4.  Cost-effectiveness and diagnostic effectiveness analyses of multiple algorithms for the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Milena Gould-Suarez; Hashem B El-Serag; Benjamin Musher; Luis Miguel Franco; Guoqing J Chen
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 5.  Microsatellite instability in gastrointestinal tract cancers: a brief update.

Authors:  Shinya Oda; Yan Zhao; Yoshihiko Maehara
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 6.  Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders.

Authors:  Frauke Becker; Carla G van El; Dolores Ibarreta; Eleni Zika; Stuart Hogarth; Pascal Borry; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Jean Jacques Cassiman; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Shirley Hodgson; A Cécile J W Janssens; Helena Kaariainen; Michael Krawczak; Ulf Kristoffersson; Jan Lubinski; Christine Patch; Victor B Penchaszadeh; Andrew Read; Wolf Rogowski; Jorge Sequeiros; Lisbeth Tranebjaerg; Irene M van Langen; Helen Wallace; Ron Zimmern; Jörg Schmidtke; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Comparison of the clinical prediction model PREMM(1,2,6) and molecular testing for the systematic identification of Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Fay Kastrinos; Ewout W Steyerberg; Judith Balmaña; Rowena Mercado; Steven Gallinger; Robert Haile; Graham Casey; John L Hopper; Loic LeMarchand; Noralane M Lindor; Polly A Newcomb; Stephen N Thibodeau; Sapna Syngal
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Accuracy of MSI testing in predicting germline mutations of MSH2 and MLH1: a case study in Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic tests without a gold standard.

Authors:  Sining Chen; Patrice Watson; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2005-04-14       Impact factor: 5.899

9.  Genetic counseling outcomes: perceived risk and distress after counseling for hereditary colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ann-Marie Codori; Tracy Waldeck; Gloria M Petersen; Diana Miglioretti; Jill D Trimbath; Miriam A Tillery
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Grace Wang; Jonathan Terdiman; Amie Blanco; Miriam Kuppermann; C Richard Boland; James Ford; Elena Elkin; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.