ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2025
Cost-effectiveness of Lynch Syndrome Screening in Colorectal Cancer: Universal Germline vs Sequential Screening.
Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic Landscape of Lynch Syndrome in a High-Risk Serbian Cohort: Predominance ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Suboptimal Adherence to Hereditary Cancer Risk Management Guidelines: A Cohort Study of High-Risk Individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
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
BACKGROUND &
aimsTesting all colorectal cancers (CRCs) for mismatch repair status to evaluate for Lynch syndrome (LS) has been recommended for years. Owing to attrition in the multistep diagnostic testing pathway, most qualifying patients still do not receive genetic testing for LS. This leads to missed diagnoses and preventable cancer incidence. To tackle this, we previously reported a systems approach that resulted in a dramatic increase in the identification of patients with LS. We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention compared with both real-world pre-intervention experience and with upfront germline testing of all CRC probands.
methodsWe employed data from the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database, the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, and pre-/post-intervention cohort studies to build lifetime Markov cohorts of CRC probands, testing 3 strategies: (1) current standard-of-care; (2) optimized standard-of-care; and (3) upfront germline testing. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in $ per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from the United States health system perspective.
resultsStrategies #1 to #3 accrued 11.97, 11.98, and 11.99 discounted QALYs at discounted costs of $100,610, $100,980, and $102,290, respectively. The pairwise ICERs on the frontier were $34,500/QALY (95% credible interval [CI], $28,400-$44,200) and $98,500/QALY (95% CI, $73,700-$216,000), respectively. The cost-effectiveness of #3 vs #1 was $70,300/QALY (95% CI, $54,600-$92,500). Current standard-of-care was favored in 0.0% of 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations.
conclusionsCurrent clinical practice is cost-ineffective. Prospective intervention to dramatically increase LS testing (ie, to reach a threshold of >75%) or, if this level cannot be reached, upfront germline testing are cost-effective interventions that improve quality-adjusted life expectancy.
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.