Mujde Z Erten1, Luca P Fernandez2, Hank K Ng3, Wendy C McKinnon4, Brandie Heald5, Christopher J Koliba6, Marc S Greenblatt7. 1. Department of Surgery, Global Health Economics Unit, Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Courtyard at Given S354, 89 Beaumont Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA. 2. Community Development and Public Administration and Policy, University of Vermont, 102 Morrill Hall, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA. 3. Internal Medicine, University of Vermont Medical Center, 111 Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA. 4. University of Vermont Medical Center, 112 Colchester Avenue Barney Building, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA. 5. Genomic Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 6. Community Development and Public Administration and Policy, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 103 Morrill Hall, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA. 7. Hematology/Oncology Division, Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Given Suite E214, 89 Beaumont Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA. marc.greenblatt@vtmednet.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Strategies to screen colorectal cancers (CRCs) for Lynch syndrome are evolving rapidly; the optimal strategy remains uncertain. AIM: We compared targeted versus universal screening of CRCs for Lynch syndrome. METHODS: In 2010-2011, we employed targeted screening (age < 60 and/or Bethesda criteria). From 2012 to 2014, we screened all CRCs. Immunohistochemistry for the four mismatch repair proteins was done in all cases, followed by other diagnostic studies as indicated. We modeled the diagnostic costs of detecting Lynch syndrome and estimated the 5-year costs of preventing CRC by colonoscopy screening, using a system dynamics model. RESULTS: Using targeted screening, 51/175 (29 %) cancers fit criteria and were tested by immunohistochemistry; 15/51 (29 %, or 8.6 % of all CRCs) showed suspicious loss of ≥1 mismatch repair protein. Germline mismatch repair gene mutations were found in 4/4 cases sequenced (11 suspected cases did not have germline testing). Using universal screening, 17/292 (5.8 %) screened cancers had abnormal immunohistochemistry suspicious for Lynch syndrome. Germline mismatch repair mutations were found in only 3/10 cases sequenced (7 suspected cases did not have germline testing). The mean cost to identify Lynch syndrome probands was ~$23,333/case for targeted screening and ~$175,916/case for universal screening at our institution. Estimated costs to identify and screen probands and relatives were: targeted, $9798/case and universal, $38,452/case. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world Lynch syndrome management, incomplete clinical follow-up was the major barrier to do genetic testing. Targeted screening costs 2- to 7.5-fold less than universal and rarely misses Lynch syndrome cases. Future changes in testing costs will likely change the optimal algorithm.
BACKGROUND: Strategies to screen colorectal cancers (CRCs) for Lynch syndrome are evolving rapidly; the optimal strategy remains uncertain. AIM: We compared targeted versus universal screening of CRCs for Lynch syndrome. METHODS: In 2010-2011, we employed targeted screening (age < 60 and/or Bethesda criteria). From 2012 to 2014, we screened all CRCs. Immunohistochemistry for the four mismatch repair proteins was done in all cases, followed by other diagnostic studies as indicated. We modeled the diagnostic costs of detecting Lynch syndrome and estimated the 5-year costs of preventing CRC by colonoscopy screening, using a system dynamics model. RESULTS: Using targeted screening, 51/175 (29 %) cancers fit criteria and were tested by immunohistochemistry; 15/51 (29 %, or 8.6 % of all CRCs) showed suspicious loss of ≥1 mismatch repair protein. Germline mismatch repair gene mutations were found in 4/4 cases sequenced (11 suspected cases did not have germline testing). Using universal screening, 17/292 (5.8 %) screened cancers had abnormal immunohistochemistry suspicious for Lynch syndrome. Germline mismatch repair mutations were found in only 3/10 cases sequenced (7 suspected cases did not have germline testing). The mean cost to identify Lynch syndrome probands was ~$23,333/case for targeted screening and ~$175,916/case for universal screening at our institution. Estimated costs to identify and screen probands and relatives were: targeted, $9798/case and universal, $38,452/case. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world Lynch syndrome management, incomplete clinical follow-up was the major barrier to do genetic testing. Targeted screening costs 2- to 7.5-fold less than universal and rarely misses Lynch syndrome cases. Future changes in testing costs will likely change the optimal algorithm.
Authors: Jose G Monzon; Carol Cremin; Linlea Armstrong; Jennifer Nuk; Sean Young; Doug E Horsman; Kristy Garbutt; Chris D Bajdik; Sharlene Gill Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Carlos J Gallego; Brian H Shirts; Caroline S Bennette; Greg Guzauskas; Laura M Amendola; Martha Horike-Pyne; Fuki M Hisama; Colin C Pritchard; William M Grady; Wylie Burke; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A M Burton-Chase; S R Hovick; S K Peterson; S K Marani; S W Vernon; C I Amos; M L Frazier; P M Lynch; E R Gritz Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Margot G F van Lier; Celine H M Leenen; Anja Wagner; Dewkoemar Ramsoekh; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Pieter J Westenend; Eelco J R de Graaf; Leonieke M M Wolters; Wietske W Vrijland; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam; Ewout W Steyerberg; Winand N M Dinjens Journal: J Pathol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: James M Gudgeon; Janet L Williams; Randall W Burt; Wade S Samowitz; Gregory L Snow; Marc S Williams Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: C R Boland; S N Thibodeau; S R Hamilton; D Sidransky; J R Eshleman; R W Burt; S J Meltzer; M A Rodriguez-Bigas; R Fodde; G N Ranzani; S Srivastava Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1998-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: María Laura González; Natalia Causada-Calo; Juan Pablo Santino; Mev Dominguez-Valentin; Fabiana Alejandra Ferro; Inés Sammartino; Pablo Germán Kalfayan; Maria Alicia Verzura; Tamara Alejandra Piñero; Andrea Romina Cajal; Walter Pavicic; Carlos Vaccaro Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: George Kunnackal John; Vipin Das Villgran; Christine Caufield-Noll; Francis M Giardiello Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Erin L Young; Bryony A Thompson; Deborah W Neklason; Matthew A Firpo; Theresa Werner; Russell Bell; Justin Berger; Alison Fraser; Amanda Gammon; Cathryn Koptiuch; Wendy K Kohlmann; Leigh Neumayer; David E Goldgar; Sean J Mulvihill; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Sean V Tavtigian Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: George Kunnackal John; Vipin Das Villgran; Christine Caufield-Noll; Francis Giardiello Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 2.375