ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2021
Economic Evaluation of Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening Protocols among Newly Diagnosed Patients with Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Universal Tumor Screening in Colorectal Cancer: Role of MMR Immunohistochemistry for Lynch Syndrome and Early-Onset CRC.Cancers · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Lynch Syndrome Screening in Colorectal Cancer: Universal Germline vs Sequential Screening.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Lynch Syndrome Identification Strategies in Individuals With Colorectal Cancer and the Impact on At-Risk Relatives.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2025Article
- Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colon Cancer (Lynch Syndrome): An Emerging Public Health Concern.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of immediate germline sequencing and multi-step screening for Lynch syndrome detection in high-risk endometrial and colorectal cancer patients.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- "Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2023Article
- Exploring Stakeholders' Perspectives on Implementing Universal Germline Testing for Colorectal Cancer: Findings From a Clinical Practice Survey.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- A picture is worth a thousand words: advancing the use of visualization tools in implementation science through process mapping and matrix heat mapping.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We conducted an updated economic evaluation, from a healthcare system perspective, to compare the relative effectiveness and efficiency of eight Lynch syndrome (LS) screening protocols among newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We developed decision analytic models for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients. Model assumptions and parameter values were based on literature and expert opinion. All costs were in 2018 USD. For identifying LS cases, the direct germline sequencing (DGS) protocol provided the best performance (sensitivity 99.90%, 99.57-99.93%; specificity 99.50%, 97.28-99.85%), followed by the tumor sequencing to germline sequencing (TSGS) protocol (sensitivity, 99.42%, 96.55-99.63%; specificity, 96.58%, 96.46-96.60%). The immunohistochemistry (IHC) protocol was most efficient at $20,082 per LS case identified, compared to microsatellite instability (MSI) ($22,988), DGS ($31,365), and TSGS ($104,394) protocols. Adding double-somatic testing to IHC and MSI protocols did not change sensitivity and specificity, increased costs by 6% and 3.5%, respectively, but reduced unexplained cases by 70% and 50%, respectively. DGS would be as efficient as the IHC protocol when the cost of germline sequencing declines under $368 indicating DGS could be an efficient option in the near future. Until then, IHC and MSI protocols with double-somatic testing would be the optimal choices.
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.