Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

A model-based assessment of the cost–utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients

Authors: Tristan Snowsill, Nicola Huxley, Martin Hoyle, Tracey Jones-Hughes, Helen Coelho, Chris Cooper, Ian Frayling, Chris Hyde

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. Individuals with Lynch syndrome have an increased risk of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian and other cancers. Lynch syndrome remains underdiagnosed in the UK. Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is proposed as a method to identify more families affected by Lynch syndrome and offer surveillance to reduce cancer risks, although cost-effectiveness is viewed as a barrier to implementation. The objective of this project was to estimate the cost–utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in individuals with early-onset colorectal cancer in the NHS.

Methods

A decision analytic model was developed which simulated diagnostic and long-term outcomes over a lifetime horizon for colorectal cancer patients with and without Lynch syndrome and for relatives of those patients. Nine diagnostic strategies were modelled which included microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, immunohistochemistry (IHC), BRAF mutation testing (methylation testing in a scenario analysis), diagnostic mutation testing and Amsterdam II criteria. Biennial colonoscopic surveillance was included for individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome and accepting surveillance. Prophylactic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (H-BSO) was similarly included for women diagnosed with Lynch syndrome. Costs from NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated and discounted at 3.5% per annum.

Results

All strategies included for the identification of Lynch syndrome were cost-effective versus no testing. The strategy with the greatest net health benefit was MSI followed by BRAF followed by diagnostic genetic testing, costing £5,491 per QALY gained over no testing. The effect of prophylactic H-BSO on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is uncertain and could outweigh the health benefits of testing, resulting in overall QALY loss.

Conclusions

Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is predicted to be a cost-effective use of limited financial resources in England and Wales. Research is recommended into the cost-effectiveness of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in other associated cancers and into the impact of prophylactic H-BSO on HRQoL.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Vasen HF, Moslein G, Alonso A, Bernstein I, Bertario L, Blanco I, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer). J Med Genet. 2007;44(6):353–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Thompson BA, Spurdle AB, Plazzer JP, Greenblatt MS, Akagi K, Al-Mulla F, et al. Application of a 5-tiered scheme for standardized classification of 2,360 unique mismatch repair gene variants in the InSiGHT locus-specific database. Nat Genet. 2014;46(2):107–15.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Cairns SR, Scholefield JH, Steele RJ, Dunlop MG, Thomas HJ, Evans GD, et al. British society of G, association of coloproctology for great B, Ireland: guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002). Gut. 2010;59(5):666–89.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Jarvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H, Aktan-Collan K, Aaltonen LA, Peltomaki P, et al. Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2000;118(5):829–34.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Palomaki GE, McClain MR, Melillo S, Hampel HL, Thibodeau SN. EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Genet Med. 2009;11(1):42–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Adelson M, Pannick S, East JE, Risby P, Dawson P, Monahan KJ. UK colorectal cancer patients are inadequately assessed for Lynch syndrome. Frontline Gastroenterology. 2014;5(1):31–5.CrossRef
8.
Schmeler KM, Lynch HT, Chen LM, Munsell MF, Soliman PT, Clark MB, et al. Prophylactic surgery to reduce the risk of gynecologic cancers in the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(3):261–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Briggs AH, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
10.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. In: Process and Methods Guides. 2013.
11.
12.
Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health And Social Care 2012. In: Personal Social Services Research Unit. 20th ed. 2012.
13.
Cirillo L, Urso ED, Parrinello G, Pucciarelli S, Moneghini D, Agostini M, et al. High Risk of Rectal Cancer and of Metachronous Colorectal Cancer in Probands of Families Fulfilling the Amsterdam Criteria. Ann Surg. 2013;257(5):900–4.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health. 2010;13(5):509–18.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ramsey SD, Andersen MR, Etzioni R, Moinpour C, Peacock S, Potosky A, et al. Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;88(6):1294–303.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Mittmann N, Au HJ, Tu DS, O'Callaghan CJ, Isogai PK, Karapetis CS, et al. Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of national cancer institute of Canada clinical trials group CO.17 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(17):1182–92.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kalady M, Dziedzic M, Manilich E, Lynch C, McGannon E, Fay S, et al. Quality of life after surgery for colorectal cancer in HNPCC patients. Familial Cancer. 2011;10:718.
18.
De Poll-Franse LVV, Mols F, Essink-Bot ML, Haartsen JE, Vingerhoets JJM, Lybeert MLM, et al. Impact of external beam adjuvant radiotherapy on health-related quality of life for long-term survivors of endometrial adenocarcinoma: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(1):125–32.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kuppermann M, Wang G, Wong S, Blanco A, Conrad P, Nakagawa S, et al. Preferences for outcomes associated with decisions to undergo or forgo genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Cancer. 2013;119(1):215–25.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kohlmann W, Gruber SB. Lynch Syndrome. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Bird TD, Dolan CR, Fong CT, Stephens K, editors. GeneReviews. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993.
22.
Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, Donnelly MT, Williams JG, Swarbrick ET. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. 2013;62(2):242–9.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kievit W, de Bruin JH, Adang EM, Severens JL, Kleibeuker JH, Sijmons RH, et al. Cost effectiveness of a new strategy to identify HNPCC patients. Gut. 2005;54(1):97–102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Kwon JS, Scott JL, Gilks CB, Daniels MS, Sun CC, Lu KH. Testing women with endometrial cancer to detect Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2247–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J, Blanco A, Kuppermann M, Richard Boland C, et al. Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):69–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Mvundura M, Grosse SD, Hampel H, Palomaki GE. The cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies for Lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer. Genet Med. 2010;12(2):93–104.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ramsey SD, Burke W, Clarke L. An economic viewpoint on alternative strategies for identifying persons with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Genet Med. 2003;5(5):353–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Ramsey SD, Clarke L, Etzioni R, Higashi M, Berry K, Urban N. Cost-effectiveness of microsatellite instability screening as a method for detecting hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(8 Pt 1):577–88.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kastrinos F, Steyerberg EW, Mercado R, Balmana J, Holter S, Gallinger S, et al. The PREMM(1,2,6) model predicts risk of MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 germline mutations based on cancer history. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(1):73–81.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Dinh TA, Rosner BI, Atwood JC, Boland CR, Syngal S, Vasen HFA, et al. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for lynch syndrome in the general Population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(1):9–22.CrossRef
31.
Vasen HF, Blanco I, Aktan-Collan K, Gopie JP, Alonso A, Aretz S, et al. Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): recommendations by a group of European experts. Gut. 2013;62(6):812–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Kwon JS, Sun CC, Peterson SK, White KG, Daniels MS, Boyd-Rogers SG, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prevention strategies for gynecologic cancers in Lynch syndrome. Cancer. 2008;113(2):326–35.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
35.
Burn J, Gerdes AM, Macrae F, Mecklin JP, Moeslein G, Olschwang S, et al. Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9809):2081–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
37.
Bhattacharya S, Middleton LJ, Tsourapas A, Lee AJ, Champaneria R, Daniels JP, et al. Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena(R) for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Tech Assess. 2011;15(19):3–16. 1-252.CrossRef
38.
Hurskainen R, Teperi J, Rissanen P, Aalto AM, Grenman S, Kivela A, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: randomized trial 5-year follow-up. JAMA. 2004;291(12):1456–63.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Arto O, Sintonen H: Quality of life of Finnish population measured by EuroQol. In: 12th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group: 3-6 October 1995; Barcelona, Spain; 1995: 161-172.
40.
41.
Affolter K, Samowitz W, Tripp S, Bronner MP. BRAF V600E mutation detection by immunohistochemistry in colorectal carcinoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2013;52(8):748–52.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Adackapara CA, Sholl LM, Barletta JA, Hornick JL. Immunohistochemistry using the BRAF V600E mutation-specific monoclonal antibody VE1 is not a useful surrogate for genotyping in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Histopathology. 2013;63(2):187–93.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Sargent DJ, Marsoni S, Monges G, Thibodeau SN, Labianca R, Hamilton SR, et al. Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(20):3219–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Snowsill T, Huxley N, Hoyle M, Jones-Hughes T, Coelho H, Cooper C et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of diagnostic strategies for Lynch syndrome. Health Tech Assess. 2014, 18(58):i-xxxviii + 1-405.
45.
Bonadona V, Bonaiti B, Olschwang S, Grandjouan S, Huiart L, Longy M, et al. French cancer genetics N: cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2304–10.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A model-based assessment of the cost–utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients
Authors
Tristan Snowsill
Nicola Huxley
Martin Hoyle
Tracey Jones-Hughes
Helen Coelho
Chris Cooper
Ian Frayling
Chris Hyde
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1254-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Cancer 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Using second harmonic generation to predict patient outcome in solid tumors

Research article

Determining the origin of synchronous multifocal bladder cancer by exome sequencing

Study protocol

Assessment and model guided cancer screening promotion by village doctors in China: a randomized controlled trial protocol

Research article

KIT exon 10 variant (c.1621 A > C) single nucleotide polymorphism as predictor of GIST patient outcome

Study protocol

A randomized phase II study of radiation induced immune boost in operable non-small cell lung cancer (RadImmune trial)

Research article

Essential medicines for breast cancer in low and middle income countries
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits