Cost-effectiveness analysis of genetic diagnostic strategies for Lynch syndrome in Italy.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
05
11
2019
accepted:
08
06
2020
entrez:
2
7
2020
pubmed:
2
7
2020
medline:
8
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant condition caused by pathogenic variants in mismatch repair (MMR) genes that predispose individuals to different malignancies, such as colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer. Current guidelines recommended testing for LS in individuals with newly diagnosed CRC to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in relatives. Economic evaluations in support of such approach, however, are not available in Italy. We developed a decision-analytic model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of LS screening from the perspective of the Italian National Health System. Three testing strategies: the sequencing of all MMR genes without prior tumor analysis (Strategy 1), a sequential IHC and MS-MLPA analysis (Strategy 2), and an age-targeted strategy with a revised Bethesda criteria assessment before IHC and methylation-specific MLPA for patients ≥ than 70 years old (Strategy 3) were analyzed and compared to the "no testing" strategy. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in relatives after colonoscopy, aspirin prophylaxis and an intensive gynecological surveillance were estimated through a Markov model. Assuming a CRC incidence rate of 0.09% and a share of patients affected by LS equal to 2.81%, the number of detected pathogenic variants among CRC cases ranges, in a given year, between 910 and 1167 depending on the testing strategy employed. The testing strategies investigated, provided one-time to the entire eligible population (CRC patients), were associated with an overall cost ranging between €1,753,059.93-€10,388,000.00. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the Markov model ranged from €941.24 /QALY to €1,681.93 /QALY, thus supporting that "universal testing" versus "no testing" is cost-effective, but not necessarily in comparison with age-targeted strategies. This is the first economic evaluation on different testing strategies for LS in Italy. The results might support the introduction of cost-effective recommendations for LS screening in Italy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32609729
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235038
pii: PONE-D-19-30790
pmc: PMC7329085
doi:
Substances chimiques
MutL Protein Homolog 1
EC 3.6.1.3
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0235038Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Genet Med. 2018 Oct;20(10):1131-1144
pubmed: 29300371
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Sep;110(9):1359-66
pubmed: 26303133
Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Nov;25(11):1237-1245
pubmed: 28832568
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 19;155(2):69-79
pubmed: 21768580
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):197-220
pubmed: 25034835
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 May;18(5):1112-1120.e1
pubmed: 31470178
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Feb 18;96(4):261-8
pubmed: 14970275
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jan 19;354(3):261-9
pubmed: 16421367
Int J Cancer. 2019 Apr 15;144(8):1941-1953
pubmed: 30350310
Front Public Health. 2017 Sep 12;5:243
pubmed: 28955708
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jun;13(6):352-61
pubmed: 27095653
Gastroenterology. 1999 Jun;116(6):1453-6
pubmed: 10348829
JAMA. 2011 Jun 8;305(22):2304-10
pubmed: 21642682
Value Health. 2013 Sep-Oct;16(6):965-72
pubmed: 24041346
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 10;33(2):209-17
pubmed: 25452455
Gastroenterology. 2010 Jun;138(7):2300-6
pubmed: 20206180
Clin Genet. 2007 Dec;72(6):562-7
pubmed: 17922849
Public Health Genomics. 2019;22(5-6):189-207
pubmed: 31805557
Ann Oncol. 2019 Oct 1;30(10):1558-1571
pubmed: 31378807
JAMA. 2006 Sep 27;296(12):1507-17
pubmed: 17003399
Colorectal Dis. 2009 Feb;11(2):126-30
pubmed: 19143775
Genet Med. 2015 Oct;17(10):765-73
pubmed: 25569434
Genet Med. 2009 Jan;11(1):42-65
pubmed: 19125127
Genet Med. 2009 Jan;11(1):35-41
pubmed: 19125126
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Feb;6(2):206-14
pubmed: 18096441
Healthcare (Basel). 2015;3(4):860-78
pubmed: 26473097
Health Technol Assess. 2017 Sep;21(51):1-238
pubmed: 28895526
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Feb;8(2):174-82
pubmed: 19835992
JAMA. 2012 Oct 17;308(15):1555-65
pubmed: 23073952
Gastroenterology. 2000 May;118(5):829-34
pubmed: 10784581
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 02;11(8):e0160599
pubmed: 27482709
Mol Clin Oncol. 2014 Nov;2(6):909-916
pubmed: 25279173
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 10;26(35):5783-8
pubmed: 18809606
Health Technol Assess. 2014 Sep;18(58):1-406
pubmed: 25244061
JAMA. 2006 Sep 27;296(12):1479-87
pubmed: 17003396
J Mol Diagn. 2010 Jul;12(4):498-504
pubmed: 20489114
Cancer. 2008 Jul 15;113(2):326-35
pubmed: 18506736