Literature DB >> 21088223

Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population.

Tuan A Dinh1, Benjamin I Rosner, James C Atwood, C Richard Boland, Sapna Syngal, Hans F A Vasen, Stephen B Gruber, Randall W Burt.   

Abstract

In current clinical practice, genetic testing to detect Lynch syndrome mutations ideally begins with diagnostic testing of an individual affected with cancer before offering predictive testing to at-risk relatives. An alternative strategy that warrants exploration involves screening unaffected individuals via demographic and family histories, and offering genetic testing to those individuals whose risks for carrying a mutation exceed a selected threshold. Whether this approach would improve health outcomes in a manner that is cost-effective relative to current standards of care has yet to be demonstrated. To do so, we developed a simulation framework that integrated models of colorectal and endometrial cancers with a 5-generation family history model to predict health and economic outcomes of 20 primary screening strategies (at a wide range of compliance levels) aimed at detecting individuals with mismatch repair gene mutations and their at-risk relatives. These strategies were characterized by (i) different screening ages for starting risk assessment and (ii) different risk thresholds above which to implement genetic testing. For each strategy, 100,000 simulated individuals, representative of the U.S. population, were followed from the age of 20, and the outcomes were compared with current practice. Findings indicated that risk assessment starting at ages 25, 30, or 35, followed by genetic testing of those with mutation risks exceeding 5%, reduced colorectal and endometrial cancer incidence in mutation carriers by approximately 12.4% and 8.8%, respectively. For a population of 100,000 individuals containing 392 mutation carriers, this strategy increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) by approximately 135 with an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of screening for mismatch repair gene mutations is comparable to that of accepted cancer screening activities in the general population such as colorectal cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and breast cancer screening. These results suggest that primary screening of individuals for mismatch repair gene mutations, starting with risk assessment between the ages of 25 and 35, followed by genetic testing of those whose risk exceeds 5%, is a strategy that could improve health outcomes in a cost-effective manner relative to current practice. ©2010 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21088223      PMCID: PMC3793254          DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0262

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)        ISSN: 1940-6215


  78 in total

1.  A computer model to simulate family history of breast/ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Authors:  C D Bajdik; J M Raboud; M T Schechter; B C McGillivray; R P Gallagher
Journal:  Math Biosci       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.144

2.  Archimedes: a new model for simulating health care systems--the mathematical formulation.

Authors:  Leonard Schlessinger; David M Eddy
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a long-term study on 114 families.

Authors:  Wouter H de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel; Fokko M Nagengast; Gerrit Griffioen; Fred H Menko; Babs G Taal; Jan H Kleibeuker; Hans F Vasen
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.585

4.  Survival analysis of endometrial carcinoma associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Dominique E S Boks; Aliana P Trujillo; Adri C Voogd; Hans Morreau; Gemma G Kenter; Hans F A Vasen
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2002-11-10       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Adenoma prevalence and cancer risk in familial non-polyposis colorectal cancer.

Authors:  G Lindgren; A Liljegren; E Jaramillo; C Rubio; A Lindblom
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  F P Dijkhuizen; B W Mol; H A Brölmann; A P Heintz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  The outcome of endometrial carcinoma surveillance by ultrasound scan in women at risk of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma and familial colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Isis Dove-Edwin; Dominique Boks; Sheila Goff; Gemma G Kenter; Robert Carpenter; Hans F A Vasen; Huw J W Thomas
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Atypical HNPCC owing to MSH6 germline mutations: analysis of a large Dutch pedigree.

Authors:  A Wagner; Y Hendriks; E J Meijers-Heijboer; W J de Leeuw; H Morreau; R Hofstra; C Tops; E Bik; A H Bröcker-Vriends; C van Der Meer; D Lindhout; H F Vasen; M H Breuning; C J Cornelisse; C van Krimpen; M F Niermeijer; A H Zwinderman; J Wijnen; R Fodde
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 6.318

9.  Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  A Sonnenberg; F Delcò; J M Inadomi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-10-17       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Proximal adenomas in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer are prone to rapid malignant transformation.

Authors:  F E M Rijcken; H Hollema; J H Kleibeuker
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 23.059

View more
  74 in total

1.  Is the ``$1000 Genome'' really $1000? Understanding the full benefits and costs of genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Mark J Pletcher; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Technol Health Care       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.285

Review 2.  History, genetics, and strategies for cancer prevention in Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Fay Kastrinos; Elena M Stoffel
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 3.  Familial colorectal cancer, beyond Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Elena M Stoffel; Fay Kastrinos
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-08-17       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 4.  ACG clinical guideline: Genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes.

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

5.  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

6.  Tumor testing to identify lynch syndrome in two Australian colorectal cancer cohorts.

Authors:  Daniel D Buchanan; Mark Clendenning; Christophe Rosty; Dallas English; Mark A Jenkins; Stine V Eriksen; Michael D Walsh; Rhiannon J Walters; Stephen N Thibodeau; Jenna Stewart; Susan Preston; Aung Ko Win; Louisa Flander; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Finlay A Macrae; Alex Boussioutas; Ingrid M Winship; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.029

7.  Evaluation of clinical criteria for the identification of Lynch syndrome among unselected patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Amanda S Bruegl; Bojana Djordjevic; Brittany Batte; Molly Daniels; Bryan Fellman; Diana Urbauer; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Charlotte Sun; Karen H Lu; Russell R Broaddus
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2014-04-25

8.  Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Vikram Kilambi; F Reed Johnson; Juan Marcos González; Ateesha F Mohamed
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 9.  Lynch syndrome: the patients' perspective.

Authors:  Jurgen Seppen; Linda Bruzzone
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Elevated risk of prostate cancer among men with Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Victoria M Raymond; Bhramar Mukherjee; Fei Wang; Shu-Chen Huang; Elena M Stoffel; Fay Kastrinos; Sapna Syngal; Kathleen A Cooney; Stephen B Gruber
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.