Literature DB >> 9558276

Cost analysis of alternative approaches to colorectal screening in familial adenomatous polyposis.

D M Cromwell1, R D Moore, J D Brensinger, G M Petersen, E B Bass, F M Giardiello.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The commercial availability of gene testing for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) represents an important advance in screening for inherited colon cancer. We investigated the financial impact of this diagnostic tool on colorectal screening for FAP.
METHODS: Decision analysis was used to compare per-person costs with third-party payers of three colorectal screening strategies used to diagnose FAP in at-risk persons. The strategies included conventional serial flexible sigmoidoscopy and two different APC gene testing approaches.
RESULTS: For 1 at-risk relative who begins screening at age 12 years, average screening costs are $2625 when genotyping the proband first, $2674 when genotyping the at-risk relative first, and $3208 for conventional sigmoidoscopy. The cost advantage of genotyping increases as the pedigree size increases. For a pedigree of 5 at-risk relatives, sigmoidoscopy would have to cost less than $85.60 (professional plus facility fee) for conventional screening to compete with genotyping. The cost advantage of genotyping is diminished for at-risk relatives who begin FAP screening at older ages.
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of least expensive FAP screening strategy depends on the cost of flexible sigmoidoscopy, patient age when screening starts, and pedigree size. Genotyping can substantially reduce the cost of FAP screening and, when possible, should start with the proband.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9558276     DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5085(98)70308-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  5 in total

Review 1.  Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders.

Authors:  Frauke Becker; Carla G van El; Dolores Ibarreta; Eleni Zika; Stuart Hogarth; Pascal Borry; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Jean Jacques Cassiman; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Shirley Hodgson; A Cécile J W Janssens; Helena Kaariainen; Michael Krawczak; Ulf Kristoffersson; Jan Lubinski; Christine Patch; Victor B Penchaszadeh; Andrew Read; Wolf Rogowski; Jorge Sequeiros; Lisbeth Tranebjaerg; Irene M van Langen; Helen Wallace; Ron Zimmern; Jörg Schmidtke; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Gardner's syndrome: genetic testing and colonoscopy are indicated in adolescents and young adults with cranial osteomas: a case report.

Authors:  Dubravko Smud; Goran Augustin; Tihomir Kekez; Emil Kinda; Mate Majerovic; Zeljko Jelincic
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-07-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Screening, prevention and socioeconomic costs associated with the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Alberto Redaelli; Carole W Cranor; Gary J Okano; Pat Ray Reese
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Importance of postpolypectomy surveillance and postpolypectomy compliance to follow-up screening--review of literature.

Authors:  Sri Rapuri; Jeanne Spencer; Dennis Eckels
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 5.  Cancer genetics services: a systematic review of the economic evidence and issues.

Authors:  G L Griffith; R T Edwards; J Gray
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-05-04       Impact factor: 7.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.