Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21768580›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2011

Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Uri Ladabaum, Grace Wang, Jonathan Terdiman, Amie Blanco, Miriam Kuppermann, C Richard Boland, James Ford, Elena Elkin, Kathryn A Phillips

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 176 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
176citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
20.6field-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

176 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 339 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Impact of Structural Differences on the Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. 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
  8. Which BRCA genetic testing programs are ready for implementation in health care? A systematic review of economic evaluations.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Uptake of genetic testing by relatives of lynch syndrome probands: a systematic review.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2013
    Pooled it
  14. Guideline
  15. Guideline
  16. Trial
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Uri LadabaumDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. uri.ladabaum@stanford.edu
Grace Wang
Jonathan Terdiman
Amie Blanco
Miriam Kuppermann
C Richard Boland
James Ford
Elena Elkin
Kathryn A Phillips
University of California, San Francisco · USStanford University · USBaylor University Medical Center · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

The Biology and Diagnosis of HNPCCR01CA072851 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO · PI GOEL, AJAY · 1996 to 2019
$6.6M
UTILIZATION OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE USING GENOMICSP01CA130818 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI PHILLIPS, KATHRYN A · 2008 to 2010
$5.1M
NCI NIH HHS 1 P01 CA130818NCI NIH HHS P01 CA130818NCI NIH HHS R01 CA072851NCI NIH HHS R01 CA72851
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTesting has been advocated for all persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer to identify families with the Lynch syndrome, an autosomal dominant cancer-predisposition syndrome that is a paradigm for personalized medicine.

objectiveTo estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome, with attention to sex, age at screening, and differential effects for probands and relatives.

designMarkov model that incorporated risk for colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: All persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer and their relatives. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer.

interventionStrategies based on clinical criteria, prediction algorithms, tumor testing, or up-front germline mutation testing, followed by tailored screening and risk-reducing surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Life-years, cancer cases and deaths, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The benefit of all strategies accrued primarily to relatives with a mutation associated with the Lynch syndrome, particularly women, whose life expectancy could increase by approximately 4 years with hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy and adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations. At current rates of germline testing, screening, and prophylactic surgery, the strategies reduced deaths from colorectal cancer by 7% to 42% and deaths from endometrial and ovarian cancer by 1% to 6%. Among tumor-testing strategies, immunohistochemistry followed by BRAF mutation testing was preferred, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per life-year gained. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The number of relatives tested per proband was a critical determinant of both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, with testing of 3 to 4 relatives required for most strategies to meet a threshold of $50,000 per life-year gained. Immunohistochemistry followed by BRAF mutation testing was preferred in 59% of iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a threshold of $100,000 per life-year gained. Screening for the Lynch syndrome with immunohistochemistry followed by BRAF mutation testing only up to age 70 years cost $44,000 per incremental life-year gained compared with screening only up to age 60 years, and screening without an upper age limit cost $88,700 per incremental life-year gained compared with screening only up to age 70 years. LIMITATION: Other types of cancer, uncertain family pedigrees, and genetic variants of unknown significance were not considered.

conclusionWidespread colorectal tumor testing to identify families with the Lynch syndrome could yield substantial benefits at acceptable costs, particularly for women with a mutation associated with the Lynch syndrome who begin regular screening and have risk-reducing surgery. The cost-effectiveness of such testing depends on the participation rate among relatives at risk for the Lynch syndrome. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseAgedColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGenetic TestingGerm-Line MutationHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMarkov ChainsMicrosatellite InstabilityMiddle AgedMonte Carlo MethodProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafBRAF protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

Identifiers

PMID21768580
PMCPMC3793257
OpenAlexW2032107446

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.