ArticleBMC medical genetics2007
Cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in families of patients with germline MUTYH mutations.
Article in BMC medical genetics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updated European guidelines for clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), gastric adenocarcinoma, proximal polyposis of the stomach (GAPPS) and other rare adenomatous polyposis syndromes: a joint EHTG-ESCP revision.The British journal of surgery · 2024Guideline
- Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Carrier testing for partners ofJournal of medical genetics · 2024Article
- Economic evidence on identifying clinically actionable findings with whole-genome sequencing: a scoping review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016Article
- Gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes for the general gastroenterologist.Frontline gastroenterology · 2014Article
- Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMUTYH associated polyposis (MAP) is an autosomal recessive inherited disorder. Carriers of bi-allelic MUTYH germline mutations have a risk of approximately 60% to develop colorectal carcinoma (CRC). In the general population about 1.5% is a heterozygous MUTYH mutation carrier. Children of MAP patients have an increased risk of inheriting two MUTYH mutations compared to the general population, implicating an increased risk for developing CRC.
methodsUsing data from the literature and Dutch MAP patients (n = 40), we constructed a Markov model to perform a societal cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in MAP families. Genetic screening was done by testing the spouse first and, in case of a heterozygous spouse, also testing of the children.
resultsThe cost of genetic screening of families of MAP patients, when compared to no genetic screening, was estimated at 25,000 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The presence of Fecal Occult Blood testing (FOBT) population screening only slightly increased this cost-utility ratio to 25,500 euros per QALY. For a MUTYH heterozygote index-patient, the ratio was 51,500 euros per QALY. The results of our analysis were sensitive to several of the parameters in the model, including the cost assumed for molecular genetic testing.
conclusionThe costs per QALY of genetic screening in families of MAP patients are acceptable according to international standards. Therefore, genetic testing of spouses and/or children should be discussed with and offered to counselees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.