BACKGROUND: Women with Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) have an increased lifetime risk for endometrial and ovarian cancer. Screening and prophylactic surgery have been recommended as prevention strategies. In this study, the authors estimated the net health benefits and cost-effectiveness of these strategies in a Markov decision-analytic model. METHODS: Five strategies were compared for a hypothetical cohort of women with Lynch syndrome: 1) no prevention ('reference'); 2) prophylactic surgery (hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy) at age 30 years; 3) prophylactic surgery at age 40 years; 4) annual screening with endometrial biopsy, transvaginal ultrasound, and CA 125 from age 30 years; and 5) annual screening from age 30 years until prophylactic surgery at age 40 years (combined strategy). Net health benefit was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the primary outcome measured was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Baseline and transition probabilities were obtained from published literature, and costs were from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Agency for Health Care Quality and Research. Sensitivity analyses were performed for uncertainty around various parameters. RESULTS: The combined strategy provided the highest net health benefit (18.98 QALYs) but had an ICER of $194,650 per QALY relative to the next best strategy (prophylactic surgery at age 40 years). Prophylactic surgery at age 30 years and annual screening were dominated by alternate strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Annual screening followed by prophylactic surgery at age 40 years was the most effective gynecologic cancer prevention strategy, but the incremental benefit over prophylactic surgery alone was attained at substantial cost. The ICER would become favorable by improving the effectiveness and reducing the costs of screening in this population.
BACKGROUND:Women with Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) have an increased lifetime risk for endometrial and ovarian cancer. Screening and prophylactic surgery have been recommended as prevention strategies. In this study, the authors estimated the net health benefits and cost-effectiveness of these strategies in a Markov decision-analytic model. METHODS: Five strategies were compared for a hypothetical cohort of women with Lynch syndrome: 1) no prevention ('reference'); 2) prophylactic surgery (hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy) at age 30 years; 3) prophylactic surgery at age 40 years; 4) annual screening with endometrial biopsy, transvaginal ultrasound, and CA 125 from age 30 years; and 5) annual screening from age 30 years until prophylactic surgery at age 40 years (combined strategy). Net health benefit was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the primary outcome measured was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Baseline and transition probabilities were obtained from published literature, and costs were from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Agency for Health Care Quality and Research. Sensitivity analyses were performed for uncertainty around various parameters. RESULTS: The combined strategy provided the highest net health benefit (18.98 QALYs) but had an ICER of $194,650 per QALY relative to the next best strategy (prophylactic surgery at age 40 years). Prophylactic surgery at age 30 years and annual screening were dominated by alternate strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Annual screening followed by prophylactic surgery at age 40 years was the most effective gynecologic cancer prevention strategy, but the incremental benefit over prophylactic surgery alone was attained at substantial cost. The ICER would become favorable by improving the effectiveness and reducing the costs of screening in this population.
Authors: Sapna Syngal; Randall E Brand; James M Church; Francis M Giardiello; Heather L Hampel; Randall W Burt Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Tuan A Dinh; Benjamin I Rosner; James C Atwood; C Richard Boland; Sapna Syngal; Hans F A Vasen; Stephen B Gruber; Randall W Burt Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2010-11-18
Authors: Daniel D Buchanan; Yen Y Tan; Michael D Walsh; Mark Clendenning; Alexander M Metcalf; Kaltin Ferguson; Sven T Arnold; Bryony A Thompson; Felicity A Lose; Michael T Parsons; Rhiannon J Walters; Sally-Ann Pearson; Margaret Cummings; Martin K Oehler; Penelope B Blomfield; Michael A Quinn; Judy A Kirk; Colin J Stewart; Andreas Obermair; Joanne P Young; Penelope M Webb; Amanda B Spurdle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Henry T Lynch; Murray Joseph Casey; Carrie L Snyder; Chhanda Bewtra; Jane F Lynch; Matthew Butts; Andrew K Godwin Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Jason D Wright; Rosa R Cui; Anqi Wang; Ling Chen; Ana I Tergas; William M Burke; Cande V Ananth; June Y Hou; Alfred I Neugut; Sarah M Temkin; Y Claire Wang; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Matthew B Yurgelun; Rowena Mercado; Margery Rosenblatt; Monica Dandapani; Wendy Kohlmann; Peggy Conrad; Amie Blanco; Kristen M Shannon; Daniel C Chung; Jonathan Terdiman; Stephen B Gruber; Judy E Garber; Sapna Syngal; Elena M Stoffel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 5.482