Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27384051›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2016

Universal Versus Targeted Screening for Lynch Syndrome: Comparing Ascertainment and Costs Based on Clinical Experience.

Mujde Z Erten, Luca P Fernandez, Hank K Ng, Wendy C McKinnon, Brandie Heald, Christopher J Koliba, Marc S Greenblatt

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Universal testing in endometrial cancer in Sweden.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mujde Z ErtenDepartment of Surgery, Global Health Economics Unit, Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Courtyard at Given S354, 89 Beaumont Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA.
Luca P FernandezCommunity Development and Public Administration and Policy, University of Vermont, 102 Morrill Hall, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA.
Hank K NgInternal Medicine, University of Vermont Medical Center, 111 Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Wendy C McKinnonUniversity of Vermont Medical Center, 112 Colchester Avenue Barney Building, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Brandie HealdGenomic Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Christopher J KolibaCommunity Development and Public Administration and Policy, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 103 Morrill Hall, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA.
Marc S GreenblattHematology/Oncology Division, Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Given Suite E214, 89 Beaumont Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA. marc.greenblatt@vtmednet.org.

Funding

Classifying DNA Mismatch Repair Gene Variants of Unknown SignificanceR01CA164944 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI GREENBLATT, MARC S, TAVTIGIAN, SEAN VAHRAM · 2013 to 2016
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA164944
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrategies to screen colorectal cancers (CRCs) for Lynch syndrome are evolving rapidly; the optimal strategy remains uncertain.

aimWe compared targeted versus universal screening of CRCs for Lynch syndrome.

methodsIn 2010-2011, we employed targeted screening (age < 60 and/or Bethesda criteria). From 2012 to 2014, we screened all CRCs. Immunohistochemistry for the four mismatch repair proteins was done in all cases, followed by other diagnostic studies as indicated. We modeled the diagnostic costs of detecting Lynch syndrome and estimated the 5-year costs of preventing CRC by colonoscopy screening, using a system dynamics model.

resultsUsing targeted screening, 51/175 (29 %) cancers fit criteria and were tested by immunohistochemistry; 15/51 (29 %, or 8.6 % of all CRCs) showed suspicious loss of ≥1 mismatch repair protein. Germline mismatch repair gene mutations were found in 4/4 cases sequenced (11 suspected cases did not have germline testing). Using universal screening, 17/292 (5.8 %) screened cancers had abnormal immunohistochemistry suspicious for Lynch syndrome. Germline mismatch repair mutations were found in only 3/10 cases sequenced (7 suspected cases did not have germline testing). The mean cost to identify Lynch syndrome probands was ~$23,333/case for targeted screening and ~$175,916/case for universal screening at our institution. Estimated costs to identify and screen probands and relatives were: targeted, $9798/case and universal, $38,452/case.

conclusionsIn real-world Lynch syndrome management, incomplete clinical follow-up was the major barrier to do genetic testing. Targeted screening costs 2- to 7.5-fold less than universal and rarely misses Lynch syndrome cases. Future changes in testing costs will likely change the optimal algorithm.

Indexed as

Age FactorsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA Mismatch RepairEarly Detection of CancerGenetic TestingGerm-Line MutationHealth Care CostsHumansImmunohistochemistryMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMismatch Repair Endonuclease PMS2MutL Protein Homolog 1DNA-Binding ProteinsG-T mismatch-binding proteinMismatch Repair Endonuclease PMS2MLH1 protein, humanMSH2 protein, humanMutL Protein Homolog 1MutS Homolog 2 ProteinPMS2 protein, humanColorectal carcinomaCost analysisLynch syndromeSystem dynamicsUniversal screening

Identifiers

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.