BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend offering genetic testing for Lynch syndrome to individuals whose tumors suggest this condition and to relatives of affected individuals. Little is known, however, regarding how patients view the prospect of such testing. In addition, data on preferences (utilities) for the potential outcomes of testing decisions for use in cost-effectiveness analyses are lacking. METHODS: Time tradeoff utilities were elicited for 10 potential outcomes of Lynch syndrome testing decisions and 3 associated cancers from 70 participants, representing a range of knowledge about and experiences with Lynch syndrome. RESULTS: Highest mean utilities were assigned to scenarios in which only the assessor's sibling had Lynch-associated colorectal cancer (ranging from 0.669 ± 0.231 to 0.760 ± 0.220). Utilities assigned to scenarios in which the assessor had Lynch-associated colorectal cancer ranged from 0.605 ± 0.252 to 0.682 ± 0.246, whereas the lowest mean utilities were assigned to 2 of the general cancer states (0.601 ± 0.238 and 0.593 ± 0.272 for colorectal and ovarian cancer respectively). Only 43% of the sample assigned higher values to undergoing Lynch testing and receiving negative results versus forgoing Lynch testing, whereas 50% assigned higher values to undergoing rather than forgoing surgery to prevent a subsequent cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome, regardless of results, can have profound effects on quality of life; the utilities we collected can be used to incorporate these effects into cost-effectiveness analyses. Importantly, preferences for the potential outcomes of testing vary substantially, calling into question the extent to which patients would avail themselves of such testing if it were offered to them.
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend offering genetic testing for Lynch syndrome to individuals whose tumors suggest this condition and to relatives of affected individuals. Little is known, however, regarding how patients view the prospect of such testing. In addition, data on preferences (utilities) for the potential outcomes of testing decisions for use in cost-effectiveness analyses are lacking. METHODS: Time tradeoff utilities were elicited for 10 potential outcomes of Lynch syndrome testing decisions and 3 associated cancers from 70 participants, representing a range of knowledge about and experiences with Lynch syndrome. RESULTS: Highest mean utilities were assigned to scenarios in which only the assessor's sibling had Lynch-associated colorectal cancer (ranging from 0.669 ± 0.231 to 0.760 ± 0.220). Utilities assigned to scenarios in which the assessor had Lynch-associated colorectal cancer ranged from 0.605 ± 0.252 to 0.682 ± 0.246, whereas the lowest mean utilities were assigned to 2 of the general cancer states (0.601 ± 0.238 and 0.593 ± 0.272 for colorectal and ovarian cancer respectively). Only 43% of the sample assigned higher values to undergoing Lynch testing and receiving negative results versus forgoing Lynch testing, whereas 50% assigned higher values to undergoing rather than forgoing surgery to prevent a subsequent cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome, regardless of results, can have profound effects on quality of life; the utilities we collected can be used to incorporate these effects into cost-effectiveness analyses. Importantly, preferences for the potential outcomes of testing vary substantially, calling into question the extent to which patients would avail themselves of such testing if it were offered to them.
Authors: Ellen R Gritz; Susan K Peterson; Sally W Vernon; Salma K Marani; Walter F Baile; Beatty G Watts; Christopher I Amos; Marsha L Frazier; Patrick M Lynch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Rebekah G Fulton; Cindy L Amundsen; Sharon K Knight; Miriam Kuppermann Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Kathleen M Schmeler; Henry T Lynch; Lee-may Chen; Mark F Munsell; Pamela T Soliman; Mary Beth Clark; Molly S Daniels; Kristin G White; Stephanie G Boyd-Rogers; Peggy G Conrad; Kathleen Y Yang; Mary M Rubin; Charlotte C Sun; Brian M Slomovitz; David M Gershenson; Karen H Lu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 91.245
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: M Keller; R Jost; C M Haunstetter; H Sattel; C Schroeter; U Bertsch; F Cremer; P Kienle; M Tariverdian; M Kloor; J Gebert; A Brechtel Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Miriam Kuppermann; Robert F Nease; Elena Gates; Lee A Learman; Bruce Blumberg; Virginia Gildengorin; A Eugene Washington Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Jorien Veldwijk; Mattijs S Lambooij; Frank G J Kallenberg; Henk J van Kranen; Annelien L Bredenoord; Evelien Dekker; Henriëtte A Smit; G Ardine de Wit Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Anjali J Kaimal; William A Grobman; Allison S Bryant; Laura Norrell; Yamilee Bermingham; Anna Altshuler; Mari-Paule Thiet; Juan Gonzalez; Peter Bacchetti; Michelle Moghadassi; Miriam Kuppermann Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Jorien Veldwijk; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Ulrik Kihlbom; Sophie Langenskiöld; Evelien Dekker; Frank G J Kallenberg; G Ardine de Wit; Mattijs S Lambooij Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Tristan Snowsill; Nicola Huxley; Martin Hoyle; Tracey Jones-Hughes; Helen Coelho; Chris Cooper; Ian Frayling; Chris Hyde Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 4.430