Elisabeth F P Peterse1, Steffie K Naber2, Corinne Daly3, Aaron Pollett4, Lawrence F Paszat5, Manon C W Spaander6, Melyssa Aronson7, Robert Gryfe8, Linda Rabeneck9, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar2, Nancy N Baxter10. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: e.peterse@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Strategy Division, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Canada. 4. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 5. Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada. 6. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 8. Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 9. Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 10. Department of Surgery, LiKaShing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The province of Ontario, Canada is considering immunohistochemical followed by cascade analyses of all patients who received a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) at an age younger than 70 years to identify individuals with Lynch syndrome. We evaluated the costs and benefits of testing for Lynch syndrome and determined the optimal surveillance interval for first-degree relatives (FDRs) found to have Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We developed a patient flow diagram to determine costs and yield of immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in CRC cases and, for those found to have Lynch syndrome, their FDRs, accounting for realistic uptake. Subsequently, we used the MISCAN-colon model to compare costs and benefits of annual, biennial, and triennial surveillance in FDRs identified with Lynch syndrome vs colonoscopy screening every 10 years (usual care for individuals without a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome). RESULTS: Testing 1000 CRC cases was estimated to identify 20 CRC index cases and 29 FDRs with Lynch syndrome at a cost of $310,274. Despite the high cost of Lynch syndrome tests, offering the FDRs with Lynch syndrome biennial colonoscopy surveillance was cost-effective at $8785 per life-year gained compared with usual care because of a substantial increase in life-years gained (+122%) and cost savings in CRC care. Triennial surveillance was more costly and less effective, and annual surveillance showed limited additional benefit compared with biennial surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in persons younger than 70 years who received a diagnosis of CRC and then testing FDRs of those found to have Lynch syndrome provide a good balance between costs and long-term benefits. Colonoscopy surveillance every 2 years is the optimal surveillance interval for patients with Lynch syndrome.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The province of Ontario, Canada is considering immunohistochemical followed by cascade analyses of all patients who received a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) at an age younger than 70 years to identify individuals with Lynch syndrome. We evaluated the costs and benefits of testing for Lynch syndrome and determined the optimal surveillance interval for first-degree relatives (FDRs) found to have Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We developed a patient flow diagram to determine costs and yield of immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in CRC cases and, for those found to have Lynch syndrome, their FDRs, accounting for realistic uptake. Subsequently, we used the MISCAN-colon model to compare costs and benefits of annual, biennial, and triennial surveillance in FDRs identified with Lynch syndrome vs colonoscopy screening every 10 years (usual care for individuals without a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome). RESULTS: Testing 1000 CRC cases was estimated to identify 20 CRC index cases and 29 FDRs with Lynch syndrome at a cost of $310,274. Despite the high cost of Lynch syndrome tests, offering the FDRs with Lynch syndrome biennial colonoscopy surveillance was cost-effective at $8785 per life-year gained compared with usual care because of a substantial increase in life-years gained (+122%) and cost savings in CRC care. Triennial surveillance was more costly and less effective, and annual surveillance showed limited additional benefit compared with biennial surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in persons younger than 70 years who received a diagnosis of CRC and then testing FDRs of those found to have Lynch syndrome provide a good balance between costs and long-term benefits. Colonoscopy surveillance every 2 years is the optimal surveillance interval for patients with Lynch syndrome.
Authors: Elena M Stoffel; Rowena C Mercado; Wendy Kohlmann; Beth Ford; Shilpa Grover; Peggy Conrad; Amie Blanco; Kristen M Shannon; Mark Powell; Daniel C Chung; Jonathan Terdiman; Stephen B Gruber; Sapna Syngal Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Stacey A Fedewa; Dennis J Ahnen; Reinier G S Meester; Afsaneh Barzi; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Robert J Hilsden; Refik Saskin; Des Leddin; Eva Grunfeld; Elaine Wai; Meredith Goldwasser; Rinku Sutradhar; Therese A Stukel Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-09-13 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Leigha Senter; Mark Clendenning; Kaisa Sotamaa; Heather Hampel; Jane Green; John D Potter; Annika Lindblom; Kristina Lagerstedt; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane M Lindor; Joanne Young; Ingrid Winship; James G Dowty; Darren M White; John L Hopper; Laura Baglietto; Mark A Jenkins; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Franziska Severin; Björn Stollenwerk; Elke Holinski-Feder; Elisabeth Meyer; Volker Heinemann; Clemens Giessen-Jung; Wolf Rogowski Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Elisabeth F P Peterse; Reinier G S Meester; Rebecca L Siegel; Jennifer C Chen; Andrea Dwyer; Dennis J Ahnen; Robert A Smith; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gai Elhanan; Daniel Kiser; Iva Neveux; Shaun Dabe; Alexandre Bolze; William J Metcalf; James T Lu; Joseph J Grzymski Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Maaike Alblas; Elisabeth F P Peterse; Mengmeng Du; Ann G Zauber; Ewout W Steyerberg; Nikki van Leeuwen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-09-12 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Elsa L S A van Liere; Nanne K H de Boer; Evelien Dekker; Monique E van Leerdam; Tim G J de Meij; Dewkoemar Ramsoekh Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 9.524