Literature DB >> 21768580

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

Uri Ladabaum1, Grace Wang, Jonathan Terdiman, Amie Blanco, Miriam Kuppermann, C Richard Boland, James Ford, Elena Elkin, Kathryn A Phillips.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Testing has been advocated for all persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer to identify families with the Lynch syndrome, an autosomal dominant cancer-predisposition syndrome that is a paradigm for personalized medicine.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome, with attention to sex, age at screening, and differential effects for probands and relatives.
DESIGN: Markov model that incorporated risk for colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: All persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer and their relatives. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer. INTERVENTION: Strategies based on clinical criteria, prediction algorithms, tumor testing, or up-front germline mutation testing, followed by tailored screening and risk-reducing surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Life-years, cancer cases and deaths, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The benefit of all strategies accrued primarily to relatives with a mutation associated with the Lynch syndrome, particularly women, whose life expectancy could increase by approximately 4 years with hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy and adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations. At current rates of germline testing, screening, and prophylactic surgery, the strategies reduced deaths from colorectal cancer by 7% to 42% and deaths from endometrial and ovarian cancer by 1% to 6%. Among tumor-testing strategies, immunohistochemistry followed by BRAF mutation testing was preferred, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per life-year gained. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The number of relatives tested per proband was a critical determinant of both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, with testing of 3 to 4 relatives required for most strategies to meet a threshold of $50,000 per life-year gained. Immunohistochemistry followed by BRAF mutation testing was preferred in 59% of iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a threshold of $100,000 per life-year gained. Screening for the Lynch syndrome with immunohistochemistry followed by BRAF mutation testing only up to age 70 years cost $44,000 per incremental life-year gained compared with screening only up to age 60 years, and screening without an upper age limit cost $88,700 per incremental life-year gained compared with screening only up to age 70 years. LIMITATION: Other types of cancer, uncertain family pedigrees, and genetic variants of unknown significance were not considered.
CONCLUSION: Widespread colorectal tumor testing to identify families with the Lynch syndrome could yield substantial benefits at acceptable costs, particularly for women with a mutation associated with the Lynch syndrome who begin regular screening and have risk-reducing surgery. The cost-effectiveness of such testing depends on the participation rate among relatives at risk for the Lynch syndrome. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21768580      PMCID: PMC3793257          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  92 in total

1.  The colon cancer burden of genetically defined hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer.

Authors:  W S Samowitz; K Curtin; H H Lin; M A Robertson; D Schaffer; M Nichols; K Gruenthal; M F Leppert; M L Slattery
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Surveillance colonoscopy improves survival in a cohort of subjects with a single mismatch repair gene mutation.

Authors:  D A Stupart; P A Goldberg; U Algar; R Ramesar
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.788

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

Authors:  Carolina M Reyes; Brian A Allen; Jonathan P Terdiman; Leslie S Wilson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  Structure and function of the components of the human DNA mismatch repair system.

Authors:  Thomas Jascur; C Richard Boland
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 7.396

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

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

6.  Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Sining Chen; Wenyi Wang; Shing Lee; Khedoudja Nafa; Johanna Lee; Kathy Romans; Patrice Watson; Stephen B Gruber; David Euhus; Kenneth W Kinzler; Jeremy Jass; Steven Gallinger; Noralane M Lindor; Graham Casey; Nathan Ellis; Francis M Giardiello; Kenneth Offit; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Point: justification for Lynch syndrome screening among all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Heather Hampel
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 11.908

8.  Surveillance for endometrial cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome.

Authors:  Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Ralf Bützow; Arto Leminen; Pentti Lehtovirta; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Heikki J Järvinen
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 7.396

9.  Colon cancer screening practices and disclosure after receipt of positive or inconclusive genetic test results for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Anne L Ersig; Donald W Hadley; Laura M Koehly
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  K Söreide; E A M Janssen; H Söiland; H Körner; J P A Baak
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  134 in total

1.  Can a gastrointestinal pathologist identify microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer with reproducibility and a high degree of specificity?

Authors:  Eli Brazowski; Paul Rozen; Sara Pel; Ziona Samuel; Irit Solar; Guy Rosner
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Identification of individuals at risk for Lynch syndrome using targeted evaluations and genetic testing: National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Colorectal Cancer joint practice guideline.

Authors:  Scott M Weissman; Randall Burt; James Church; Steve Erdman; Heather Hampel; Spring Holter; Kory Jasperson; Matt F Kalady; Joy Larsen Haidle; Henry T Lynch; Selvi Palaniappan; Paul E Wise; Leigha Senter
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Multilevel research and the challenges of implementing genomic medicine.

Authors:  Muin J Khoury; Ralph J Coates; Mary L Fennell; Russell E Glasgow; Maren T Scheuner; Sheri D Schully; Marc S Williams; Steven B Clauser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

4.  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 5.  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 6.  Familial colorectal cancer, beyond Lynch syndrome.

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

7.  Worldwide Practice Patterns in Lynch Syndrome Diagnosis and Management, Based on Data From the International Mismatch Repair Consortium.

Authors:  Jennifer Y Pan; Robert W Haile; Allyson Templeton; Finlay Macrae; FeiFei Qin; Vandana Sundaram; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  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

9.  Evaluating the utilization of educational materials in communicating about Lynch syndrome to at-risk relatives.

Authors:  Kristen Dilzell; Kerry Kingham; Kelly Ormond; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 10.  Lynch syndrome: the patients' perspective.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.