ArticleFamilial cancer2012
Predictive genetic testing of first degree relatives of mutation carriers is a cost-effective strategy in preventing hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer in Singapore.
Article in Familial cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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 · 2022Pooled it
- Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Pooled 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
- Patients' and family members' experiences with cascade testing for Lynch syndrome in the USA: a qualitative interview study.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Leveraging Electronic Health Records to Examine the Real-World Rates of Cancer Genetics Referrals in a Singapore Health Care Cluster.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Observational
- Cost-Utility Analysis of Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening among Colorectal Cancer Patients in a Low-Middle-Income Country.Yonsei medical journal · 2025Article
- Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk: Is the Community Willing to Pay for It?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Predictive Testing for Tumor Predisposition Syndromes in Pediatric Relatives: An Asian Experience.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Impact of free cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing on uptake in Singapore.NPJ genomic medicine · 2019Article
- Impact of Appointment Waiting Time on Attendance Rates at a Clinical Cancer Genetics Service.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Personalized medicine in colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review of health economic evaluations.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2018Review
- 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
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Genetic Testing Strategies for Lynch Syndrome in Taiwan.PloS one · 2016Article
- Economic evaluation of genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in Germany.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015Article
- Cost sharing and hereditary cancer risk: predictors of willingness-to-pay for genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2014Article
- Article
- Costs of genetic testing: Supporting Brazilian Public Policies for the incorporating of molecular diagnostic technologies.Genetics and molecular biologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer in Singapore. We sought to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of targeted genetic testing and surveillance programs in individuals at high risk of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), as compared to an unselective clinical surveillance program alone in Singapore. A Markov model analysis from the healthcare service provider's perspective was developed to follow over a lifetime a cohort of cancer-free 21-year-old individuals, who were first-degree relatives of HNPCC patients with a known mutation. Genetic testing strategy provided a lifetime saving of Singapore dollars (SGD) 13,588 per person and gained additional life years of 0.01, as compared to clinical surveillance alone, by sparing non-mutation carriers from unnecessary and invasive intensive clinical surveillance (assuming 100% compliance with recommended surveillance programs in both strategies). Sensitivity analyses showed that as long as the compliance rate in mutation carriers was not lower than that for individuals without genetic testing, pursuing a genetic testing strategy would either be a more favorable option with discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from SGD 6,961 to 17,289 per life year gained or a dominant status achieved (more life year gained and less costly). Genetic testing for individuals at high risk of HNPCC allows targeted clinical surveillance to be directed at mutation carriers, ensuring efficient use of healthcare resources and reduces CRC-related mortality. It can be regarded as a cost-effective strategy in Singapore, if an improved compliance with recommended surveillance protocol is achieved in proven mutation carriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22350504What 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.