Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26938782›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016

Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients up to 70 years of age.

Celine H M Leenen, Anne Goverde, Esther W de Bekker-Grob, Anja Wagner, Margot G F van Lier, Manon C W Spaander, Marco J Bruno, Carli M Tops, Ans M W van den Ouweland, Hendrikus J Dubbink and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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
  2. A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Young-onset colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cost-effectiveness of Active Identification and Subsequent Colonoscopy Surveillance of Lynch Syndrome Cases.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2020
    Article
  16. SEOM clinical guideline on hereditary colorectal cancer (2019).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020
    Article
  17. Increasing Awareness of Uterine Cancer Risks and Symptoms by Using Campaign Materials from Inside Knowledge: Get the Facts About Gynecologic Cancer.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019
    Article
  18. An alternative approach to establishing unbiased colorectal cancer risk estimation in Lynch syndrome.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  19. Comprehensive Paired Tumor/Germline Testing for Lynch Syndrome: Bringing Resolution to the Diagnostic Process.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Celine H M LeenenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7990-1922
Anne GoverdeDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3238-4411
Esther W de Bekker-GrobDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anja WagnerDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Margot G F van LierDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Manon C W SpaanderDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marco J BrunoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Carli M TopsDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ans M W van den OuwelandDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hendrikus J DubbinkDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ernst J KuipersDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Winand N M DinjensDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique E van LeerdamDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the cost-effectiveness of routine Lynch syndrome (LS) screening among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients ≤70 years of age.

methodsA population-based series of CRC patients ≤70 years of age was routinely screened for LS. We calculated life years gained (LYG) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for different age cutoffs and comparing age-targeted screening with the revised Bethesda guidelines.

resultsScreening 1,117 CRC patients identified 23 LS patients, of whom 7 were ≤50 years of age, 7 were 51-60, and 9 were 61-70. Additionally, 70 LS carriers were identified among relatives (14, 42, and 14 per age category). Screening amounted to 205.9 LYG or 43.6, 118.0, and 44.3 LYG per age category. ICERs were [euro ]4.226/LYG for screening CRC patients ≤60 years of age compared with those ≤50 years and [euro ]7.051/LYG for screening CRC patients ≤70 years compared with those ≤60 years. The revised Bethesda guidelines identified 70 of 93 (75%) LS carriers. The ICER for LS screening in CRC patients ≤70 years of age compared with the revised Bethesda guidelines was [euro ]7.341/LYG. All ICERs remained less than [euro ]13.000/LYG in one-way sensitivity analyses.

conclusionRoutine LS screening by analysis of microsatellite instability, immunohistochemistry, and MLH1 hypermethylation in CRC patients ≤70 years of age is a cost-effective strategy with important clinical benefits for CRC patients and their relatives.Genet Med 18 10, 966-973.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultAgedColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisDNA MethylationDNA Mismatch RepairEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMaleMicrosatellite InstabilityMiddle AgedMutL Protein Homolog 1MLH1 protein, humanMutL Protein Homolog 1

Identifiers

PMID26938782
OpenAlexW2288991458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.