Afsaneh Barzi1, Sarmad Sadeghi1, Michael W Kattan1, Neal J Meropol1. 1. Department of Medicine, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (AB, SS); Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH (MWK); Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH (MWK); Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (MWK) and Department of Medicine (NJM), School of Medicine, and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Department of Medicine, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH (NJM).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Approximately 3% of colorectal cancers are associated with Lynch Syndrome. Controversy exists regarding the optimal screening strategy for Lynch Syndrome. METHODS: Using an individual level microsimulation of a population affected by Lynch syndrome over several years, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 21 screening strategies were compared. Modeling assumptions were based upon published literature, and sensitivity analyses were performed for key assumptions. In a two-step process, the number of Lynch syndrome diagnoses (Step 1) and life-years gained as a result of foreknowledge of Lynch syndrome in otherwise healthy carriers (Step 2) were measured. RESULTS: The optimal strategy was sequential screening for probands starting with a predictive model, then immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair protein expression (IHC), followed by germline mutation testing (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of $35 143 per life-year gained). The strategies of IHC + BRAF, germline testing and universal germline testing of colon cancer probands had ICERs of $144 117 and $996 878, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that the initial step in screening for Lynch Syndrome should be the use of predictive models in probands. Universal tumor testing and general population screening strategies are not cost-effective. When family history is unavailable, alternate strategies are appropriate. Documentation of family history and screening for Lynch Syndrome using a predictive model may be considered a quality-of-care measure for patients with colorectal cancer.
BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Approximately 3% of colorectal cancers are associated with Lynch Syndrome. Controversy exists regarding the optimal screening strategy for Lynch Syndrome. METHODS: Using an individual level microsimulation of a population affected by Lynch syndrome over several years, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 21 screening strategies were compared. Modeling assumptions were based upon published literature, and sensitivity analyses were performed for key assumptions. In a two-step process, the number of Lynch syndrome diagnoses (Step 1) and life-years gained as a result of foreknowledge of Lynch syndrome in otherwise healthy carriers (Step 2) were measured. RESULTS: The optimal strategy was sequential screening for probands starting with a predictive model, then immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair protein expression (IHC), followed by germline mutation testing (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of $35 143 per life-year gained). The strategies of IHC + BRAF, germline testing and universal germline testing of colon cancer probands had ICERs of $144 117 and $996 878, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that the initial step in screening for Lynch Syndrome should be the use of predictive models in probands. Universal tumor testing and general population screening strategies are not cost-effective. When family history is unavailable, alternate strategies are appropriate. Documentation of family history and screening for Lynch Syndrome using a predictive model may be considered a quality-of-care measure for patients with colorectal cancer.
Authors: R Salovaara; A Loukola; P Kristo; H Kääriäinen; H Ahtola; M Eskelinen; N Härkönen; R Julkunen; E Kangas; S Ojala; J Tulikoura; E Valkamo; H Järvinen; J P Mecklin; L A Aaltonen; A de la Chapelle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Heather Hampel; Wendy L Frankel; Edward Martin; Mark Arnold; Karamjit Khanduja; Philip Kuebler; Hidewaki Nakagawa; Kaisa Sotamaa; Thomas W Prior; Judith Westman; Jenny Panescu; Dan Fix; Janet Lockman; Ilene Comeras; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aung Ko Win; Noralane M Lindor; Ingrid Winship; Katherine M Tucker; Daniel D Buchanan; Joanne P Young; Christophe Rosty; Barbara Leggett; Graham G Giles; Jack Goldblatt; Finlay A Macrae; Susan Parry; Matthew F Kalady; John A Baron; Dennis J Ahnen; Loic Le Marchand; Steven Gallinger; Robert W Haile; Polly A Newcomb; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christoph Engel; Markus Loeffler; Verena Steinke; Nils Rahner; Elke Holinski-Feder; Wolfgang Dietmaier; Hans K Schackert; Heike Goergens; Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz; Timm O Goecke; Wolff Schmiegel; Reinhard Buettner; Gabriela Moeslein; Tom G W Letteboer; Encarna Gómez García; Frederik J Hes; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Fred H Menko; Theo A M van Os; Rolf H Sijmons; Anja Wagner; Irma Kluijt; Peter Propping; Hans F A Vasen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Rebecca A Barnetson; Albert Tenesa; Susan M Farrington; Iain D Nicholl; Roseanne Cetnarskyj; Mary E Porteous; Harry Campbell; Malcolm G Dunlop Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karl Johnson; Katherine W Saylor; Isabella Guynn; Karen Hicklin; Jonathan S Berg; Kristen Hassmiller Lich Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Elisabeth F P Peterse; Steffie K Naber; Corinne Daly; Aaron Pollett; Lawrence F Paszat; Manon C W Spaander; Melyssa Aronson; Robert Gryfe; Linda Rabeneck; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Nancy N Baxter Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Celine H M Leenen; Anne Goverde; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Anja Wagner; Margot G F van Lier; Manon C W Spaander; Marco J Bruno; Carli M Tops; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Ernst J Kuipers; Winand N M Dinjens; Monique E van Leerdam; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Paul J Goodfellow; Caroline C Billingsley; Heather A Lankes; Shamshad Ali; David E Cohn; Russell J Broaddus; Nilsa Ramirez; Colin C Pritchard; Heather Hampel; Alexis S Chassen; Luke V Simmons; Amy P Schmidt; Feng Gao; Louise A Brinton; Floor Backes; Lisa M Landrum; Melissa A Geller; Paul A DiSilvestro; Michael L Pearl; Shashikant B Lele; Matthew A Powell; Richard J Zaino; David Mutch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 44.544