ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2011
Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population.
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.
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
95 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 177 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gynaecological cancer surveillance for women with Lynch syndrome: systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- 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 · 2018Pooled it
- ACG clinical guideline: Genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Guideline
- Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Endometrial tumour BRAF mutations and MLH1 promoter methylation as predictors of germline mismatch repair gene mutation status: a literature review.Familial cancer · 2014Pooled it
- Importance of Prior Patient Interactions With the Healthcare System to Engaging With Pretest Cancer Genetic Services via Digital Health Tools Among Unaffected Primary Care Patients: Findings From the BRIDGE Trial.Health services research · 2026Trial
- Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- The evolution of hereditary cancer genetic counselling: mainstreaming, service redesign and patient experience in Lynch syndrome.Familial cancer · 2026Review
- Who Am I? Eyebrow Follicles Minimize Donor-Derived DNA for Germline Testing After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Incidence of non-colorectal/endometrial malignancies in individuals with Lynch syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Expanding the genetic landscape of colorectal polyposis: Progress and challenges.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Feasibility and impact of Lynch syndrome genetic testing in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients: a multicenter observational study in Greece.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Screening and prevention of gynecologic malignancies in patients with lynch syndrome: following the guidelines.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Exploring family communication preferences in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a national Canadian survey.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Review
- Integrating economic considerations into cutpoint selection may help align clinical decision support toward value-based healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Population Genomic Screening for Three Common Hereditary Conditions : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Medicaid Expansions: Probing Medicaid's Filling of the Cancer Genetic Testing and Screening Space.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.