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.
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.
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
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: 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
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
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
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