Literature DB >> 26169622

Detecting Germline PTEN Mutations Among At-Risk Patients With Cancer: An Age- and Sex-Specific Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Joanne Ngeow1, Chang Liu1, Ke Zhou1, Kevin D Frick1, David B Matchar1, Charis Eng2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cowden syndrome (CS) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by benign and malignant tumors. One-quarter of patients who are diagnosed with CS have pathogenic germline PTEN mutations, which increase the risk of the development of breast, thyroid, uterine, renal, and other cancers. PTEN testing and regular, intensive cancer surveillance allow for early detection and treatment of these cancers for mutation-positive patients and their relatives. Individual CS-related features, however, occur commonly in the general population, making it challenging for clinicians to identify CS-like patients to offer PTEN testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We calculated the cost per mutation detected and analyzed the cost-effectiveness of performing selected PTEN testing among CS-like patients using a semi-quantitative score (the PTEN Cleveland Clinic [CC] score) compared with existing diagnostic criteria. In our model, first-degree relatives of the patients with detected PTEN mutations are offered PTEN testing. All individuals with detected PTEN mutations are offered cancer surveillance.
RESULTS: CC score at a threshold of 15 (CC15) costs from $3,720 to $4,573 to detect one PTEN mutation, which is the most inexpensive among the different strategies. At base-case, CC10 is the most cost-effective strategy for female patients who are younger than 40 years, and CC15 is the most cost-effective strategy for female patients who are between 40 and 60 years of age and male patients of all ages. In sensitivity analyses, CC15 is robustly the most cost-effective strategy for probands who are younger than 60 years.
CONCLUSION: Use of the CC score as a clinical risk calculator is a cost-effective prescreening method to identify CS-like patients for PTEN germline testing.
© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26169622      PMCID: PMC4525048          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.60.3456

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  34 in total

1.  Mammography screening in Norway: results from the first screening round in four counties and cost-effectiveness of a modeled nationwide screening.

Authors:  H Wang; R Kåresen; A Hervik; S O Thoresen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 2.  Lessons from cost-effectiveness research for United States public health policy.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Steven M Teutsch; Anne C Haddix
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 21.981

Review 3.  Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  M C Weinstein; J E Siegel; M R Gold; M S Kamlet; L B Russell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-10-16       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  A clinical scoring system for selection of patients for PTEN mutation testing is proposed on the basis of a prospective study of 3042 probands.

Authors:  Min-Han Tan; Jessica Mester; Charissa Peterson; Yiran Yang; Jin-Lian Chen; Lisa A Rybicki; Kresimira Milas; Holly Pederson; Berna Remzi; Mohammed S Orloff; Charis Eng
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 11.025

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.  Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.

Authors:  Anjani Chandra; Gladys M Martinez; William D Mosher; Joyce C Abma; Jo Jones
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 23       Date:  2005-12

7.  Building a model to determine the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in France.

Authors:  P Arveux; S Wait; P Schaffer
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.520

8.  Decreasing incidence of late-stage breast cancer after the introduction of organized mammography screening in Italy.

Authors:  Flavia Foca; Silvia Mancini; Lauro Bucchi; Donella Puliti; Marco Zappa; Carlo Naldoni; Fabio Falcini; Maria L Gambino; Silvano Piffer; Maria E Sanoja Gonzalez; Fabrizio Stracci; Manuel Zorzi; Eugenio Paci
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Biochemical screening and PTEN mutation analysis in individuals with autism spectrum disorders and macrocephaly.

Authors:  Judith A Hobert; Rebecca Embacher; Jessica L Mester; Thomas W Frazier; Charis Eng
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Frank van Hees; J Dik F Habbema; Reinier G Meester; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  4 in total

1.  Potentially pathogenic germline CHEK2 c.319+2T>A among multiple early-onset cancer families.

Authors:  Mev Dominguez-Valentin; Sigve Nakken; Hélène Tubeuf; Daniel Vodak; Per Olaf Ekstrøm; Anke M Nissen; Monika Morak; Elke Holinski-Feder; Alexandra Martins; Pål Møller; Eivind Hovig
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 2.  A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders.

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

3.  Evaluation of Patients and Families With Concern for Predispositions to Hematologic Malignancies Within the Hereditary Hematologic Malignancy Clinic (HHMC).

Authors:  Courtney D DiNardo; Sarah A Bannon; Mark Routbort; Anna Franklin; Maureen Mork; Mary Armanios; Emily M Mace; Jordan S Orange; Meselle Jeff-Eke; Jane E Churpek; Koichi Takahashi; Jeffrey L Jorgensen; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Steve Kornblau; Alison Bertuch; Hannah Cheung; Kapil Bhalla; Andrew Futreal; Lucy A Godley; Keyur P Patel
Journal:  Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk       Date:  2016-04-27

4.  Outcomes of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in relation to familial history: a decision analysis (BRCR-D-16-00033).

Authors:  Kalatu R Davies; Abenaa M Brewster; Isabelle Bedrosian; Patricia A Parker; Melissa A Crosby; Susan K Peterson; Yu Shen; Robert J Volk; Scott B Cantor
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 6.466

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.