Maiken Thyregod Joergensen1, Anne-Marie Gerdes2, Jan Sorensen3, Ove Schaffalitzky de Muckadell4, Michael Bau Mortensen5. 1. Vejle Hospital, Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: maiken.t.joergensen@rsyd.dk. 2. Juliane Marie Centret, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Centre for Health Economic Research (COHERE), Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 4. Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 5. Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death worldwide, symptoms are few and diffuse, and when the diagnosis has been made only 10-15% would benefit from resection. Surgery is the only potentially curable treatment for pancreatic cancer, and the prognosis seems to improve with early detection. A hereditary component has been identified in 1-10% of the PC cases. To comply with this, screening for PC in high-risk groups with a genetic disposition for PC has been recommended in research settings. DESIGN: Between January 2006 and February 2014 31 patients with Hereditary pancreatitis or with a disposition of HP and 40 first-degree relatives of patients with Familial Pancreatic Cancer (FPC) were screened for development of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with yearly endoscopic ultrasound. The cost-effectiveness of screening in comparison with no-screening was assessed by the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICER). RESULTS: By screening the FPC group we identified 2 patients with PDAC who were treated by total pancreatectomy. One patient is still alive, while the other died after 7 months due to cardiac surgery complications. Stratified analysis of patients with HP and FPC provided ICERs of 47,156 US$ vs. 35,493 US$ per life-year and 58,647 US$ vs. 47,867 US$ per QALY. Including only PDAC related death changed the ICER to 31,722 US$ per life-year and 42,128 US$ per QALY. The ICER for patients with FPC was estimated at 28,834 US$ per life-year and 38,785 US$ per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: With a threshold value of 50,000 US$ per QALY this screening program appears to constitute a cost-effective intervention although screening of HP patients appears to be less cost-effective than FPC patients.
OBJECTIVE:Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death worldwide, symptoms are few and diffuse, and when the diagnosis has been made only 10-15% would benefit from resection. Surgery is the only potentially curable treatment for pancreatic cancer, and the prognosis seems to improve with early detection. A hereditary component has been identified in 1-10% of the PC cases. To comply with this, screening for PC in high-risk groups with a genetic disposition for PC has been recommended in research settings. DESIGN: Between January 2006 and February 2014 31 patients with Hereditary pancreatitis or with a disposition of HP and 40 first-degree relatives of patients with Familial Pancreatic Cancer (FPC) were screened for development of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with yearly endoscopic ultrasound. The cost-effectiveness of screening in comparison with no-screening was assessed by the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICER). RESULTS: By screening the FPC group we identified 2 patients with PDAC who were treated by total pancreatectomy. One patient is still alive, while the other died after 7 months due to cardiac surgery complications. Stratified analysis of patients with HP and FPC provided ICERs of 47,156 US$ vs. 35,493 US$ per life-year and 58,647 US$ vs. 47,867 US$ per QALY. Including only PDAC related death changed the ICER to 31,722 US$ per life-year and 42,128 US$ per QALY. The ICER for patients with FPC was estimated at 28,834 US$ per life-year and 38,785 US$ per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: With a threshold value of 50,000 US$ per QALY this screening program appears to constitute a cost-effective intervention although screening of HPpatients appears to be less cost-effective than FPC patients.
Authors: Casey R Tak; Eman Biltaji; Wendy Kohlmann; Luke Maese; Pierre Hainaut; Anita Villani; David Malkin; Catherine M T Sherwin; Diana I Brixner; Joshua D Schiffman Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Kasper A Overbeek; Djuna L Cahen; Marcia Irene Canto; Marco J Bruno Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 3.043
Authors: Mary Linton B Peters; Andrew Eckel; Anna Lietz; Claudia Seguin; Peter Mueller; Chin Hur; Pari V Pandharipande Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 3.977
Authors: Christie Y Jeon; Sungjin Kim; Yu-Chen Lin; Harvey A Risch; Mark O Goodarzi; Teryl K Nuckols; Stephen J Freedland; Stephen J Pandol; Joseph R Pisegna Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Frederike S Franke; Elvira Matthäi; Emily P Slater; Christoph Schicker; Johannes Kruse; Detlef K Bartsch Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 2.857
Authors: Bechien U Wu; Eva Lustigova; Qiaoling Chen; Elizabeth Y Dong; Anirban Maitra; Suresh T Chari; Ziding Feng; Jo Ann Rinaudo; Lynn M Matrisian; Rex A Parker Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.396