Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21088223›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2011

Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population.

Tuan A Dinh, Benjamin I Rosner, James C Atwood, C Richard Boland, Sapna Syngal, Hans F A Vasen, Stephen B Gruber, Randall W Burt

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

95 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 177 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Which Lynch syndrome screening programs could be implemented in the "real world"? A systematic review of economic evaluations.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tuan A DinhArchimedes, Inc, San Francisco, California, USA.
Benjamin I Rosner
James C Atwood
C Richard Boland
Sapna Syngal
Hans F A Vasen
Stephen B Gruber
Randall W Burt
Baylor University Medical Center · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USHuntsman Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

The Biology and Diagnosis of HNPCCR01CA072851 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO · PI GOEL, AJAY · 1996 to 2019
$6.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA072851
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In current clinical practice, genetic testing to detect Lynch syndrome mutations ideally begins with diagnostic testing of an individual affected with cancer before offering predictive testing to at-risk relatives. An alternative strategy that warrants exploration involves screening unaffected individuals via demographic and family histories, and offering genetic testing to those individuals whose risks for carrying a mutation exceed a selected threshold. Whether this approach would improve health outcomes in a manner that is cost-effective relative to current standards of care has yet to be demonstrated. To do so, we developed a simulation framework that integrated models of colorectal and endometrial cancers with a 5-generation family history model to predict health and economic outcomes of 20 primary screening strategies (at a wide range of compliance levels) aimed at detecting individuals with mismatch repair gene mutations and their at-risk relatives. These strategies were characterized by (i) different screening ages for starting risk assessment and (ii) different risk thresholds above which to implement genetic testing. For each strategy, 100,000 simulated individuals, representative of the U.S. population, were followed from the age of 20, and the outcomes were compared with current practice. Findings indicated that risk assessment starting at ages 25, 30, or 35, followed by genetic testing of those with mutation risks exceeding 5%, reduced colorectal and endometrial cancer incidence in mutation carriers by approximately 12.4% and 8.8%, respectively. For a population of 100,000 individuals containing 392 mutation carriers, this strategy increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) by approximately 135 with an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of screening for mismatch repair gene mutations is comparable to that of accepted cancer screening activities in the general population such as colorectal cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and breast cancer screening. These results suggest that primary screening of individuals for mismatch repair gene mutations, starting with risk assessment between the ages of 25 and 35, followed by genetic testing of those whose risk exceeds 5%, is a strategy that could improve health outcomes in a cost-effective manner relative to current practice.

Indexed as

AdultColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisCost-Benefit AnalysisEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic TestingHumansIncidenceMichiganMutationNeoplasm ProteinsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRisk AssessmentStandard of CareNeoplasm Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21088223
PMCPMC3793254
OpenAlexW2103848163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.