Gynaecological cancer surveillance for women with Lynch syndrome: systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation.
CANCER SURVEILLANCE
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS
DISCRETE EVENT SIMULATION
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
ENDOMETRIAL CANCER
HEREDITARY NON-POLYPOSIS COLORECTAL CANCER
LYNCH SYNDROME
OVARIAN CANCER
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
WHOLE DISEASE MODEL
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2024
Aug 2024
Historique:
medline:
9
9
2024
pubmed:
9
9
2024
entrez:
9
9
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome. We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing. We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered. There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which puts people at a higher risk of getting bowel cancer, womb cancer and ovarian cancer. Although people with Lynch syndrome are more likely to get these cancers, they are more likely to survive cancer if they get it. People diagnosed with Lynch syndrome get regular testing (surveillance) using a camera to check for bowel cancer or polyps. For womb and ovarian cancer, surveillance may also be an option, but it is less well studied in these cancers. This means that many women are not offered surveillance. Women with Lynch syndrome are recommended to have risk-reducing surgery when their risk starts rising, if they do not want any more children. We wanted to find out whether surveillance for womb and ovarian cancer would work and would be good value for money. Doctors and patients have said that these are important research questions. We searched for published research on this subject and found a lot of studies, but these studies were often small or not well designed, so they could only tell us a limited amount. Studies did not always measure the things that patients want to know. There was some evidence that people having surveillance might live longer than people not having surveillance, but there was also some evidence that risk-reducing surgery is better than surveillance. Surveillance has detected some cancers which had no symptoms, but there are also cancers diagnosed soon after a surveillance visit where nothing was found. People often find surveillance painful, but experiences vary. Our work shows that surveillance and surgery could be good value for money for many women with Lynch syndrome. We need better research to help patients and doctors decide whether surveillance is right for them.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing.
Results
UNASSIGNED
We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for
Limitations
UNASSIGNED
Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit.
Study registration
UNASSIGNED
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098.
Funding
UNASSIGNED
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in
Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which puts people at a higher risk of getting bowel cancer, womb cancer and ovarian cancer. Although people with Lynch syndrome are more likely to get these cancers, they are more likely to survive cancer if they get it. People diagnosed with Lynch syndrome get regular testing (surveillance) using a camera to check for bowel cancer or polyps. For womb and ovarian cancer, surveillance may also be an option, but it is less well studied in these cancers. This means that many women are not offered surveillance. Women with Lynch syndrome are recommended to have risk-reducing surgery when their risk starts rising, if they do not want any more children. We wanted to find out whether surveillance for womb and ovarian cancer would work and would be good value for money. Doctors and patients have said that these are important research questions. We searched for published research on this subject and found a lot of studies, but these studies were often small or not well designed, so they could only tell us a limited amount. Studies did not always measure the things that patients want to know. There was some evidence that people having surveillance might live longer than people not having surveillance, but there was also some evidence that risk-reducing surgery is better than surveillance. Surveillance has detected some cancers which had no symptoms, but there are also cancers diagnosed soon after a surveillance visit where nothing was found. People often find surveillance painful, but experiences vary. Our work shows that surveillance and surgery could be good value for money for many women with Lynch syndrome. We need better research to help patients and doctors decide whether surveillance is right for them.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which puts people at a higher risk of getting bowel cancer, womb cancer and ovarian cancer. Although people with Lynch syndrome are more likely to get these cancers, they are more likely to survive cancer if they get it. People diagnosed with Lynch syndrome get regular testing (surveillance) using a camera to check for bowel cancer or polyps. For womb and ovarian cancer, surveillance may also be an option, but it is less well studied in these cancers. This means that many women are not offered surveillance. Women with Lynch syndrome are recommended to have risk-reducing surgery when their risk starts rising, if they do not want any more children. We wanted to find out whether surveillance for womb and ovarian cancer would work and would be good value for money. Doctors and patients have said that these are important research questions. We searched for published research on this subject and found a lot of studies, but these studies were often small or not well designed, so they could only tell us a limited amount. Studies did not always measure the things that patients want to know. There was some evidence that people having surveillance might live longer than people not having surveillance, but there was also some evidence that risk-reducing surgery is better than surveillance. Surveillance has detected some cancers which had no symptoms, but there are also cancers diagnosed soon after a surveillance visit where nothing was found. People often find surveillance painful, but experiences vary. Our work shows that surveillance and surgery could be good value for money for many women with Lynch syndrome. We need better research to help patients and doctors decide whether surveillance is right for them.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-228Références
Win AK, Jenkins MA, Dowty JG, Antoniou AC, Lee A, Giles GG, et al. Prevalence and penetrance of major genes and polygenes for colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26:404–12. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.Epi-16-0693
Dominguez-Valentin M, Sampson JR, Seppälä TT, Ten Broeke SW, Plazzer JP, Nakken S, et al. Cancer risks by gene, age, and gender in 6350 carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair variants: findings from the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database. Genet Med 2020;22:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0596-9
Watson P, Bützow R, Lynch HT, Mecklin JP, Järvinen HJ, Vasen HF, et al., International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. The clinical features of ovarian cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2001;82:223–8. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6279
Burn J, Gerdes AM, Macrae F, Mecklin JP, Moeslein G, Olschwang S, et al., CAPP2 Investigators. Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;378:2081–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61049-0
Järvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H, Aktan–Collan K, Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P, et al. Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2000;118:829–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5085(00)70168-5
Crosbie EJ, Ryan NAJ, Arends MJ, Bosse T, Burn J, Cornes JM, et al., Manchester International Consensus Group. The Manchester International Consensus Group recommendations for the management of gynecological cancers in Lynch syndrome. Genet Med 2019;21:2390–400. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0489-y
Schmeler KM, Lynch HT, Chen LM, Munsell MF, Soliman PT, Clark MB, et al. Prophylactic surgery to reduce the risk of gynecologic cancers in the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med 2006;354:261–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052627
Møller P, Seppälä T, Bernstein I, Holinski-Feder E, Sala P, Evans DG, et al., Mallorca Group (http://mallorca-group.eu). Cancer incidence and survival in Lynch syndrome patients receiving colonoscopic and gynaecological surveillance: first report from the prospective Lynch syndrome database. Gut 2017;66:464–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309675
Snowsill T, Coelho H, Huxley N, Jones-Hughes T, Briscoe S, Frayling IM, Hyde C. Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2017;21:1–238. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21510
Snowsill T, Huxley N, Hoyle M, Jones-Hughes T, Coelho H, Cooper C, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of diagnostic strategies for Lynch syndrome. Health Technol Assess 2014;18:1–406. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18580
Bonis PA, Trikalinos TA, Chung M, Chew P, Ip S, DeVine DA, et al. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: diagnostic strategies and their implications. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2007;1:180.
Shia J, Klimstra DS, Nafa K, Offit K, Guillem JG, Markowitz AJ, et al. Value of immunohistochemical detection of DNA mismatch repair proteins in predicting germline mutation in hereditary colorectal neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:96–104. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000146009.85309.3b
Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, Syngal S, de la Chapelle A, Rüschoff J, et al. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:261–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh034
Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S, Grandjouan S, Huiart L, Longy M, et al., French Cancer Genetics Network. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA 2011;305:2304–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.743
Office for National Statistics. Cancer Registration Statistics, England: 2016. London: Office for National Statistics; 2018. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancerregistrationstatisticsengland/final2016 (accessed 16 April 2019).
Vasen HF, Möslein G, Alonso A, Bernstein I, Bertario L, Blanco I, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer). J Med Genet 2007;44:353–62. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2007.048991
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Molecular Testing Strategies for Lynch Syndrome in People with Colorectal Cancer (DG27); 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg27 (accessed 11 September 2019).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Testing Strategies for Lynch Syndrome in People with Endometrial Cancer (DG42); 2020. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg42/ (accessed 11 September 2019).
Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Lynch HT. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 1999;116:1453–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5085(99)70510-x
Vasen HF, Blanco I, Aktan-Collan K, Gopie JP, Alonso A, Aretz S, et al., Mallorca Group. Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): recommendations by a group of European experts. Gut 2013;62:812–23. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304356
Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, Arnold M, Khanduja K, Kuebler P, et al. Feasibility of screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5783–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.17.5950
Ryan NAJ, McMahon R, Tobi S, Snowsill T, Esquibel S, Wallace AJ, et al. The proportion of endometrial tumours associated with Lynch syndrome (PETALS): a prospective cross-sectional study. PLOS Med 2020;17:e1003263. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003263
Office for National Statistics. Cancer Registration Statistics, England, 2017; 2019. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancerregistrationstatisticsengland/2017 (accessed 30 November 2021).
National Health Service England. The NHS Long Term Plan. Leeds: NHS England; 2019. URL: www.longtermplan.nhs.uk (accessed 2 May 2019).
Dashti SG, Chau R, Ouakrim DA, Buchanan DD, Clendenning M, Young JP, et al. Female hormonal factors and the risk of endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome. JAMA 2015;314:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.6789
Incisive Health, Cancer Research UK. Saving Lives, Averting Costs – An Analysis of the Financial Implications of Achieving Earlier Diagnosis of Colorectal, Lung and Ovarian Cancer. London: Cancer Research UK; 2014.
Office for National Statistics. Conceptions in England and Wales: 2017. Office for National Statistics; 2019. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/bulletins/conceptionstatistics/2017 (accessed 2 May 2019).
Sun CC, Meyer LA, Daniels MS, Bodurka DC, Nebgen DR, Burton-Chase AM, et al. Women’s preferences for cancer risk management strategies in Lynch syndrome. Gynecol Oncol 2019;152:514–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.11.027
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Ovarian Cancer: The Recognition and Initial Management of Ovarian Cancer (CG122); 2011. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg122 (accessed 14 July 2022).
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). CASP Cohort Study Checklist [Online]; 2018. URL: https://casp-uk.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Cohort-Study-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf (accessed 11 January 2022).
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al., QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
Barrow E, Robinson L, Alduaij W, Shenton A, Clancy T, Lalloo F, et al. Cumulative lifetime incidence of extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome: a report of 121 families with proven mutations. Clin Genet 2009;75:141–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2008.01125.x
Bats A, Blons H, Narjoz C, Le Frere-Belda M, Laurent-Puig P, Lecuru F. Diagnostic value of microsatellite instability analysis in uterine cavity washings to detect endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome. Gynecol Oncol 2013;130:e101.
Bats AS, Blons H, Narjoz C, Le Frere-Belda MA, Laurent-Puig P, Lecuru F. Microsatellite instability analysis in uterine cavity washings to detect endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome. Anticancer Res 2014;34:3211–5.
Bucksch K, Zachariae S, Aretz S, Büttner R, Holinski-Feder E, Holzapfel S, et al., German Consortium for Familial Intestinal Cancer. Cancer risks in Lynch syndrome, Lynch-like syndrome, and familial colorectal cancer type X: a prospective cohort study. BMC Cancer 2020;20:460. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-06926-x
Dove-Edwin I, Boks D, Goff S, Kenter GG, Carpenter R, Vasen HF, Thomas HJW. The outcome of endometrial carcinoma surveillance by ultrasound scan in women at risk of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma and familial colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2002;94:1708–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10380
Dueñas N, Navarro M, Teulé A, Solanes A, Salinas M, Iglesias S, et al. Correction: Dueñas et al. Assessing effectiveness of colonic and gynecological risk reducing surgery in Lynch syndrome individuals. Cancers (Basel) 2021;12:3419. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13133104
Dueñas N, Navarro M, Teulé A, Solanes A, Salinas M, Iglesias S, et al. Assessing effectiveness of colonic and gynecological risk reducing surgery in Lynch syndrome individuals. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:3419. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12113419
Eikenboom EL, van Doorn HC, Dinjens WNM, Dubbink HJ, Geurts-Giele WRR, Spaander MCW, et al. Gynecological surveillance and surgery outcomes in Dutch Lynch syndrome carriers. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:459. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13030459
Elmasry K, Davies AJ, Evans DG, Seif MN, Reynolds K. Strategies for endometrial screening in the Lynch syndrome population: a patient acceptability study. Fam Cancer 2009;8:431–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9259-3
Gerritzen LH, Hoogerbrugge N, Oei AL, Nagengast FM, van Ham MA, Massuger LF, de Hullu JA. Improvement of endometrial biopsy over transvaginal ultrasound alone for endometrial surveillance in women with Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer 2009;8:391–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9252-x
Helder-Woolderink JM, De Bock GH, Hollema H, Hofstra RMW, Sijmons RH, Mourits MJE. Annual gynaecological surveillance in women with Lynch syndrome: what’s the additional value of microcurettage? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21:S1067.
Helder-Woolderink JM, De Bock GH, Sijmons RH, Hollema H, Mourits MJ. The additional value of endometrial sampling in the early detection of endometrial cancer in women with Lynch syndrome. Gynecol Oncol 2013;131:304–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.032
Helder-Woolderink J, de Bock G, Hollema H, van Oven M, Mourits M. Pain evaluation during gynaecological surveillance in women with Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer 2017;16:205–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-016-9937-x
Helder-Woolderink JM, De Bock GH, Mourits MJE. Perception of pain at gynaecological surveillance in women with Lynch syndrome. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015;25:1557.
Ketabi Z, Gerdes AM, Mosgaard B, Ladelund S, Bernstein I. The results of gynecologic surveillance in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014;133:526–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.012
Boilesen AE, Bisgaard ML, Bernstein I. Risk of gynecologic cancers in Danish hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer families. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:1129–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340802443806
Lécuru F, Metzger U, Scarabin C, Le Frère Belda MA, Olschwang S, Laurent Puig P. Hysteroscopic findings in women at risk of HNPCC. Results of a prospective observational study. Fam Cancer 2007;6:295–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-007-9123-2
Lécuru F, Le Frère Belda MA, Bats AS, Tulpin L, Metzger U, Olschwang S, Laurent-Puig P. Performance of office hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy for detecting endometrial disease in women at risk of human non-polyposis colon cancer: a prospective study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008;18:1326–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01183.x
Lécuru F, Huchon C, Metzger U, Bats AS, Le Frère Belda MA, Olschwang S, Puig PL. Contribution of ultrasonography to endometrial cancer screening in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer/Lynch syndrome. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010;20:583–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181d7283a
Manchanda R, Saridogan E, Abdelraheim A, Johnson M, Rosenthal AN, Benjamin E, et al. Annual outpatient hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling (OHES) in HNPCC/Lynch syndrome (LS). Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:1555–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2492-2
Møller P, Seppälä T, Bernstein I, Holinski-Feder E, Sala P, Evans DG, et al., Mallorca Group (http://mallorca-group.org). Incidence of and survival after subsequent cancers in carriers of pathogenic MMR variants with previous cancer: a report from the prospective Lynch syndrome database. Gut 2017;66:1657–64. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311403
Huang M, Sun C, Boyd-Rogers S, Burzawa J, Milbourne A, Keeler E, et al. Prospective study of combined colon and endometrial cancer screening in women with Lynch syndrome: a patient-centered approach. J Oncol Pract 2011;7:43–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.2010.000038
Huang M, Sun CC, Boyd-Rogers S, Burzawa JK, Milbourne A, Keeler E, et al. A prospective study of combined colon and endometrial cancer screening in women with Lynch syndrome: a novel, patient-centered approach. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1563–1563.
Nebgen DR, Lu K, Chisholm GB, Sun CC, Earles T, Soletsky BR, et al. International society for gastrointestinal hereditary tumours-InSiGHT. Fam Cancer 2019;18:1–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-019-00124-w
Nebgen DR, Lu KH, Rimes S, Keeler E, Broaddus R, Munsell MF, Lynch PM. Combined colonoscopy and endometrial biopsy cancer screening results in women with Lynch syndrome. Gynecol Oncol 2014;135:85–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.08.017
Ring K, Boyd-Rogers S, Amin Y, Daniels M, Batte B, Schmeler K, et al. Endometrial cancer screening in Lynch syndrome: do patients report symptoms prior to diagnosis? Gynecol Oncol 2013;130:e100–1.
Pylvänäinen K, Lehtinen T, Kellokumpu I, Järvinen H, Mecklin JP. Causes of death of mutation carriers in Finnish Lynch syndrome families. Fam Cancer 2012;11:467–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-012-9537-3
Järvinen HJ, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Aktán-Collán K, Peltomäki P, Aaltonen LA, Mecklin JP. Ten years after mutation testing for Lynch syndrome: cancer incidence and outcome in mutation-positive and mutation-negative family members. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4793–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.23.7784
Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Bützow R, Leminen A, Lehtovirta P, Mecklin JP, Järvinen HJ. Surveillance for endometrial cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Int J Cancer 2007;120:821–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22446
Rijcken FE, Mourits MJ, Kleibeuker JH, Hollema H, van der Zee AG. Gynecologic screening in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91:74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00371-8
Rosenthal A, Philpott S, Rizzuto I, Fraser L, Manchanda R, Badman P, et al. Incidental diagnosis of endometrial cancer during the UK familial ovarian cancer screening study (UKFOCSS). Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012;22:E1196.
Rosenthal AN, Fraser L, Manchanda R, Badman P, Philpott S, Mozersky J, et al. Results of annual screening in phase I of the United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study highlight the need for strict adherence to screening schedule. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.39.7638
Ryan NAJ, Evans DG, Green K, Crosbie EJ. Pathological features and clinical behavior of Lynch syndrome-associated ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2017;144:491–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.01.005
Stuckless S, Green J, Dawson L, Barrett B, Woods MO, Dicks E, Parfrey PS. Impact of gynecological screening in Lynch syndrome carriers with an MSH2 mutation. Clin Genet 2013;83:359–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01929.x
Tzortzatos G, Andersson E, Soller M, Askmalm MS, Zagoras T, Georgii-Hemming P, et al. The gynecological surveillance of women with Lynch syndrome in Sweden. Gynecol Oncol 2015;138:717–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.07.016
Wood NJ, Munot S, Sheridan E, Duffy SR. Does a ‘one-stop’ gynecology screening clinic for women in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families have an impact on their psychological morbidity and perception of health? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008;18:279–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01009.x
Helder-Woolderink J, De Bock G, De Hullu J, Hollema H, Zweemer R, Slangen R, et al. Characteristics of ovarian cancer in women with Lynch syndrome. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017;27:90.
Helder-Woolderink J, De Bock G, Vasen H, Hollema H, Mourits M. Characteristics of ovarian cancer in women with Lynch syndrome. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016;26:713.
Woolderink JM, De Bock GH, de Hullu JA, Hollema H, Zweemer RP, Slangen BFM, et al. Characteristics of Lynch syndrome associated ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2018;150:324–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.03.060
Woolderink JM, De Bock GH, van Hemel BM, Geuken E, Hollema H, Werner N, Mourits MJ. Feasibility of endometrial sampling by vaginal tampons in women with Lynch syndrome. BMC Womens Health 2020;20:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-00920-y
de Jong AE, Hendriks YM, Kleibeuker JH, de Boer SY, Cats A, Griffioen G, et al. Decrease in mortality in Lynch syndrome families because of surveillance. Gastroenterology 2006;130:665–71. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.032
Kalamo MH, Mäenpää JU, Seppälä TT, Mecklin JP, Huhtala H, Sorvettula K, et al. Factors associated with decision-making on prophylactic hysterectomy and attitudes towards gynecological surveillance among women with Lynch syndrome (LS): a descriptive study. Fam Cancer 2020;19:177–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-020-00158-5
Ryan N, Nobes M, Sedgewick D, Teoh SN, Evans DG, Crosbie EJ. A mismatch in care: results of a United Kingdom-wide patient and clinician survey of gynaecological services for women with Lynch syndrome. BJOG 2021;128:728–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16432
ISRCTN Registry. United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study; 2010. URL: www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN32794457 (accessed 12 August 2022).
Yang B, Mallett S, Takwoingi Y, Davenport CF, Hyde CJ, Whiting PF, et al., QUADAS-C Group. QUADAS-C: a tool for assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2021;174:1592–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/m21-2234
Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. PharmacoEcon 2006;24:355–71. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006
Kwon JS, Sun CC, Peterson SK, White KG, Daniels MS, Boyd-Rogers SG, Lu KH. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prevention strategies for gynecologic cancers in Lynch syndrome. Cancer 2008;113:326–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23554
Yang KY, Caughey AB, Little SE, Cheung MK, Chen LM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of prophylactic surgery versus gynecologic surveillance for women from hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) families. Fam Cancer 2011;10:535–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-011-9444-z
Wright JD, Silver ER, Tan SX, Hur C, Kastrinos F. Cost-effectiveness analysis of genotype-specific surveillance and preventive strategies for gynecologic cancers among women with Lynch syndrome. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4:e2123616. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.23616
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med 2009;6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Briggs A, Fenn P. Trying to do better than average: a commentary on ‘statistical inference for cost-effectiveness ratios’. Health Econ 1997;6:491–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199709)6:5<491::Aid-hec293>3.0.Co;2-r
Chen L-m, Yang KY, Little SE, Cheung MK, Caughey AB. Gynecologic cancer prevention in Lynch syndrome/hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Aog.0000267500.27329.85
Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Paisley S. Systematic searching and selection of health state utility values from the literature. Value Health 2013;16:686–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.017
Hurskainen R, Teperi J, Rissanen P, Aalto AM, Grenman S, Kivelä A, et al. Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001;357:273–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)03615-1
Hurskainen R, Teperi J, Rissanen P, Aalto AM, Grenman S, Kivelä A, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: randomized trial 5-year follow-up. JAMA 2004;291:1456–63. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.12.1456
Kuppermann M, Wang G, Wong S, Blanco A, Conrad P, Nakagawa S, et al. Preferences for outcomes associated with decisions to undergo or forgo genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Cancer 2013;119:215–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27634
Grann VR, Jacobson JS, Sundararajan V, Albert SM, Troxel AB, Neugut AI. The quality of life associated with prophylactic treatments for women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Cancer J Sci Am 1999;5:283–92.
Grann VR, Panageas KS, Whang W, Antman KH, Neugut AI. Decision analysis of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA1-positive or BRCA2-positive patients. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:979–85. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.3.979
Hettle R, Borrill J, Suri G, Wulff J. Estimating health-state utility values for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer using functional assessment of cancer therapy – general mapping algorithms. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2015;7:615–27. https://doi.org/10.2147/ceor.S92078
Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J, Oza AM, Mahner S, Redondo A, et al., ENGOT-OV16/NOVA Investigators. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:2154–64. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1611310
Oza AM, Lorusso D, Aghajanian C, Oaknin A, Dean A, Colombo N, et al. Patient-centered outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of rucaparib maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:3494–505. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.03107
Oza AM, Matulonis UA, Malander S, Hudgens S, Sehouli J, Del Campo JM, et al. Quality of life in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo (ENGOT-OV16/NOVA): results from a double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:1117–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30333-4
Armfield NR, Janda M, Obermair A. Obesity in total laparoscopic hysterectomy for early stage endometrial cancer: health gain and inpatient resource use. Int J Qual Health Care 2019;31:283–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy162
Bijen CB, Vermeulen KM, Mourits MJ, Arts HJ, Ter Brugge HG, van der Sijde R, et al. Cost effectiveness of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in early stage endometrial cancer: a randomised trial. Gynecol Oncol 2011;121:76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.043
Cykert S, Phifer N, Hansen C. Tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: a framework for clinical decisions. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:433–42.
Ferguson SE, Panzarella T, Lau S, Gien LT, Samouëlian V, Giede C, et al. Prospective cohort study comparing quality of life and sexual health outcomes between women undergoing robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:476–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.558
Hildebrandt T, Thiel FC, Fasching PA, Graf C, Bani MR, Loehberg CR, et al. Health utilities in gynecological oncology and mastology in Germany. Anticancer Res 2014;34:829–35.
Kent EE, Ambs A, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Smith AW, Hays RD. Health-related quality of life in older adult survivors of selected cancers: data from the SEER-MHOS linkage. Cancer 2015;121:758–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29119
Kimman M, Jan S, Monaghan H, Woodward M. The relationship between economic characteristics and health-related quality of life in newly diagnosed cancer patients in Southeast Asia: results from an observational study. Qual Life Res 2015;24:937–49.
Lundin ES, Carlsson P, Wodlin NB, Nilsson L, Kjölhede P. Cost-effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:1719–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001611
Lundin ES, Wodlin NB, Nilsson L, Kjölhede P. A prospective randomized assessment of quality of life between open and robotic hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019; 29:721–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000285
Mansel R, Locker G, Fallowfield L, Benedict A, Jones D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole vs tamoxifen in adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer in the United Kingdom: the 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (‘Arimidex’, Tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial. Br J Cancer 2007;97:152–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603804
Naik H, Howell D, Su S, Qiu X, Brown MC, Vennettilli A, et al. EQ-5D health utility scores: data from a comprehensive Canadian cancer centre. Patient 2017;10:105–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0190-z
Setiawan D, Dusafitri A, Galistiani GF, van Asselt ADI, Postma MJ. Health-related quality of life of patients with HPV-related cancers in Indonesia. Value Health Reg Issues 2018;15:63–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2017.07.010
Ueno T, Watanabe K, Ikemoto T, Matsushita H, Kawanami K, Arai YC, Wakatsuki A. Patient-reported outcomes after surgery among patients with gynecological diseases in Japan. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2021;42:22–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482x.2019.1708321
Cohn DE, Barnett JC, Wenzel L, Monk BJ, Burger RA, Straughn JM Jr, et al. A cost-utility analysis of NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Protocol 218: incorporating prospectively collected quality-of-life scores in an economic model of treatment of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2015;136:293–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.020
Cole AL, Barber EL, Gogate A, Tran AQ, Wheeler SB. Economic analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer using an aggressive surgical paradigm. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018;28:1077–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/igc.0000000000001271
Duong M, Wright E, Yin L, Martin-Nunez I, Ghatage P, Fung-Kee-Fung M. The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in Canada. Curr Oncol 2016;23:e461–7. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.3139
Friedlander M, Rau J, Lee CK, Meier W, Lesoin A, Kim JW, et al. Quality of life in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) randomized to maintenance pazopanib or placebo after first-line chemotherapy in the AGO-OVAR 16 trial. Measuring what matters-patient-centered end points in trials of maintenance therapy. Ann Oncol 2018;29:737–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx796
Fujiwara K, Monk BJ, Lhommé C, Coleman RL, Brize A, Oaknin A, et al. Health-related quality of life in women with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving paclitaxel plus trebananib or placebo (TRINOVA-1). Ann Oncol 2016;27:1006–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw147
Gordon LG, Scuffham PA, Beesley VL, Green AC, DeFazio A, Wyld DK, et al., Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. Medical costs and outcomes for Australian women with ovarian cancer: a patient-level analysis over 2.5 years. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010;20:757–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/igc.0b013e3181dbd13f
Grann VR, Patel P, Bharthuar A, Jacobson JS, Warner E, Anderson K, et al. Breast cancer-related preferences among women with and without BRCA mutations. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;119:177–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0373-6
Havrilesky LJ, Broadwater G, Davis DM, Nolte KC, Barnett JC, Myers ER, Kulasingam S. Determination of quality of life-related utilities for health states relevant to ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment. Gynecol Oncol 2009;113:216–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.026
Havrilesky LJ, Pokrzywinski R, Revicki D, Higgins RV, Nycum LR, Kohler MF, et al. Cost-effectiveness of combination versus sequential docetaxel and carboplatin for the treatment of platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. Cancer 2012;118:386–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.26199
Havrilesky LJ, Yang JC, Lee PS, Secord AA, Ehrisman JA, Davidson B, et al. Patient preferences for attributes of primary surgical debulking versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for treatment of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Cancer 2019;125:4399–406.
Hess LM, Brady WE, Havrilesky LJ, Cohn DE, Monk BJ, Wenzel L, Cella D. Comparison of methods to estimate health state utilities for ovarian cancer using quality of life data: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2013;128:175–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.10.024
Hess LM, Malone DC, Reed PG, Skrepnek G, Weihs K. Preferences of patients and oncologists for advanced ovarian cancer treatment-related health states. Health Outcomes Res mEd 2010;1:e51.
Hinde S, Epstein D, Cook A, Embleton A, Perren T, Sculpher M. The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in advanced ovarian cancer using evidence from the ICON7 trial. Value Health 2016;19:431–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.013
Krasner CN, Poveda A, Herzog TJ, Vermorken JB, Kaye SB, Nieto A, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in relapsed ovarian cancer: results from a randomized Phase III study of trabectedin with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) versus PLD alone. Gynecol Oncol 2012;127:161–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.06.034
Luealon P, Khempech N, Vasuratna A, Hanvoravongchai P, Havanond P. Cost effectiveness analysis of different management strategies between best supportive care and second-line chemotherapy for platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016;17:799–805.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Bevacizumab in Combination with Paclitaxel and Carboplatin for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Technology Appraisal Guidance (TA284); 2013.
Ortega A, Dranitsaris G, Sturgeon J, Sutherland H, Oza A. Cost-utility analysis of paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1997;66:454–63. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1997.4786
Rowland MR, Lesnock JL, Farris C, Kelley JL, Krivak TC. Cost-utility comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulking surgery for treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer in patients 65 years old or older. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:763.e1–8.
Stein K, Sugar C, Velikova G, Stark D. Putting the ‘Q’ in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for advanced ovarian cancer: an approach using data clustering methods and the internet. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:104–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.09.007
van de Vrie R, van Meurs HS, Rutten MJ, Naaktgeboren CA, Opmeer BC, Gaarenstroom KN, et al. Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy as diagnostic tool before primary cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:449–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.06.019
van Roosmalen MS, Verhoef LC, Stalmeier PF, Hoogerbrugge N, van Daal WA. Decision analysis of prophylactic surgery or screening for BRCA1 mutation carriers: a more prominent role for oophorectomy. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:2092–100. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2002.08.035
Borendal Wodlin N, Nilsson L, Kjølhede P. Health-related quality of life and postoperative recovery in fast-track hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:362–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2010.01058.x
Bouwsma EVA, Bosmans JE, van Dongen JM, Brölmann HAM, Anema JR, Huirne JAF. Cost-effectiveness of an internet-based perioperative care programme to enhance postoperative recovery in gynaecological patients: economic evaluation alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. BMJ Open 2018;8:e017782. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017782
Christiansen UJ, Kruse AR, Olesen PG, Lauszus FF, Kesmodel US, Forman A. Outpatient vs inpatient total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2019;98:1420–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13670
Cooper K, Breeman S, Scott NW, Scotland G, Hernández R, Clark TJ, et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with second-generation endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: the HEALTH RCT. Health Technol Assess 2019;23:1–108. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta23530
Davies JE, Doyle PM. Quality of life studies in unselected gynaecological outpatients and inpatients before and after hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;22:523–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144361021000003681
Dickersin K, Munro MG, Clark M, Langenberg P, Scherer R, Frick K, et al., Surgical Treatments Outcomes Project for Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding (STOP-DUB) Research Group. Hysterectomy compared with endometrial ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1279–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Aog.0000292083.97478.38
Fennessy FM, Kong CY, Tempany CM, Swan JS. Quality-of-life assessment of fibroid treatment options and outcomes. Radiology 2011;259:785–92. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11100704
Garry R, Fountain J, Brown J, Manca A, Mason S, Sculpher M, et al. EVALUATE hysterectomy trial: a multicentre randomised trial comparing abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic methods of hysterectomy. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1–154. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8260
Gorlero F, Lijoi D, Biamonti M, Lorenzi P, Pullè A, Dellacasa I, Ragni N. Hysterectomy and women satisfaction: total versus subtotal technique. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008;278:405–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0615-6
Hemming C, Constable L, Goulao B, Kilonzo M, Boyers D, Elders A, et al. Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs. Health Technol Assess 2020;24:1–220. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24130
Kuppermann M, Learman LA, Schembri M, Gregorich SE, Jackson RA, Jacoby A, et al. Contributions of hysterectomy and uterus-preserving surgery to health-related quality of life. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e318292aea4
Lashen H, Jones GL, Duru C, Pitsillides C, Radley S, Jacques RM, McAlindon M. Bowel dysfunction after total abdominal hysterectomy for benign conditions: a prospective longitudinal study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;25:1217–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0b013e328362dc5e
Radosa JC, Meyberg-Solomayer G, Kastl C, Radosa CG, Mavrova R, Gräber S, et al. Influences of different hysterectomy techniques on patients’ postoperative sexual function and quality of life. J Sex Med 2014;11:2342–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12623
Sculpher M. A cost-utility analysis of abdominal hysterectomy versus transcervical endometrial resection for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998;14:302–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300012277
Taipale K, Leminen A, Räsänen P, Heikkilä A, Tapper AM, Sintonen H, Roine RP. Costs and health-related quality of life effects of hysterectomy in patients with benign uterine disorders. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88:1402–10. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016340903317990
Borendal Wodlin N. Fast Track Abdominal Hysterectomy: On the Mode of Anesthesia, Postoperative Recovery and Health Economics. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press; 2011.
Sculpher M, Manca A, Abbott J, Fountain J, Mason S, Garry R. Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial. BMJ 2004;328:134. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.37942.601331.EE
Dunlop WCN, Mason N, Kenworthy J, Akehurst RL. Benefits, challenges and potential strategies of open source health economic models. PharmacoEcon 2017;35:125–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0479-8
Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Brennan A, Squires H, Stevenson M. Whole disease modeling to inform resource allocation decisions in cancer: a methodological framework. Value Health 2012;15:1127–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.008
Team SimPy. SimPy; 2022. URL: https://simpy.readthedocs.io/ (accessed 8 August 2022).
Thomas A. Welcome to Injector’s Documentation!; 2022. URL: https://injector.readthedocs.io/ (accessed 8 August 2022).
Harris CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 2020;585:357–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, et al., SciPy 1.0 Contributors. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods 2020;17:261–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
Krekel H, Oliveira B, Pfannschmidt R, Bruynooghe F, Laugher B, Bruhin F. pytest 7.1; 2004. URL: https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest (accessed 23 July 2022).
Stan Development Team. Stan Modeling Language Users Guide and Reference Manual, 2.30; 2022.
R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2021.
Ahadova A, Gallon R, Gebert J, Ballhausen A, Endris V, Kirchner M, et al. Three molecular pathways model colorectal carcinogenesis in Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer 2018;143:139–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31300
Ahadova A, Seppälä TT, Engel C, Gallon R, Burn J, Holinski-Feder E, et al. The ‘unnatural’ history of colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome: lessons from colonoscopy surveillance. Int J Cancer 2021;148:800–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33224
Seppälä TT, Ahadova A, Dominguez-Valentin M, Macrae F, Evans DG, Therkildsen C, et al. Lack of association between screening interval and cancer stage in Lynch syndrome may be accounted for by over-diagnosis; a prospective Lynch syndrome database report. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2019;17:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-019-0106-8
Engel C, Vasen HF, Seppälä T, Aretz S, Bigirwamungu-Bargeman M, de Boer SY, et al., German HNPCC Consortium, the Dutch Lynch Syndrome Collaborative Group, and the Finnish Lynch Syndrome Registry. No difference in colorectal cancer incidence or stage at detection by colonoscopy among 3 countries with different Lynch syndrome surveillance policies. Gastroenterology 2018;155:1400–1409.e2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.030
Haupt S, Zeilmann A, Ahadova A, Bläker H, von Knebel Doeberitz M, Kloor M, Heuveline V. Mathematical modeling of multiple pathways in colorectal carcinogenesis using dynamical systems with Kronecker structure. PLOS Comput Biol 2021;17:e1008970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008970
Dinh TA, Rosner BI, Atwood JC, Boland CR, Syngal S, Vasen HF, et al. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011;4:9–22. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.Capr-10-0262
Thomas C, Mandrik O, Saunders CL, Thompson D, Whyte S, Griffin S, Usher-Smith JA. The costs and benefits of risk stratification for colorectal cancer screening based on phenotypic and genetic risk: a health economic analysis. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2021;14:811–22. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.Capr-20-0620
Xu Y, Li C, Zheng CZ, Zhang YQ, Guo TA, Liu FQ, Xu Y. Comparison of long-term outcomes between Lynch sydrome and sporadic colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. BMC Cancer 2021;21:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07771-8
Office for National Statistics. Cancer Survival in England: Adults Diagnosed Between 2013 and 2017 and Followed up to 2018; 2019. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/cancersurvivalratescancersurvivalinenglandadultsdiagnosed (accessed 21 July 2022).
Brown KF, Rumgay H, Dunlop C, Ryan M, Quartly F, Cox A, et al. The fraction of cancer attributable to modifiable risk factors in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom in 2015. Br J Cancer 2018;118:1130–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0029-6
ten Broeke SW, van der Klift HM, Tops CMJ, Aretz S, Bernstein I, Buchanan DD, et al. Cancer risks for PMS2-associated Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:2961–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2018.78.4777
Lacey JV, Chia VM. Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of progression to carcinoma. Maturitas 2009;63:39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.02.005
Lacey JV, Ioffe OB, Ronnett BM, Rush BB, Richesson DA, Chatterjee N, et al. Endometrial carcinoma risk among women diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia: the 34-year experience in a large health plan. Br J Cancer 2007;98:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604102
Contreras NA, Sabadell J, Verdaguer P, Julià C, Fernández-Montolí ME. Fertility-sparing approaches in atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer patients: current evidence and future directions. Int J Mol Sci 2022;23;2531. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23052531
Westin SN, Fellman B, Sun CC, Broaddus RR, Woodall ML, Pal N, et al. Prospective phase II trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine device: nonsurgical approach for complex atypical hyperplasia and early-stage endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;224:191.e1–191.e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.032
Barr CE, Ryan NAJ, Derbyshire AE, Wan YL, MacKintosh ML, McVey RJ, et al. Weight loss during intrauterine progestin treatment for obesity-associated atypical hyperplasia and early-stage cancer of the endometrium. Cancer Prev Res 2021;14:1041–50. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.Capr-21-0229
Pal N, Broaddus RR, Urbauer DL, Balakrishnan N, Milbourne A, Schmeler KM, et al. Treatment of low-risk endometrial cancer and complex atypical hyperplasia with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131:109–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000002390
Snowsill TM, Ryan NAJ, Crosbie EJ, Frayling IM, Evans DG, Hyde CJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer in the UK setting. PLOS ONE 2019;14:e0221419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221419 (Open Access model at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/38303).
Carr C, Son J, Yao M, Priyadarshini A, Marquard J, Vargas R, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes of endometrial cancer patients with mismatch repair deficiency in the era of universal Lynch syndrome screening. Gynecol Oncol 2020;159:712–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.09.039
Post CCB, Stelloo E, Smit V, Ruano D, Tops CM, Vermij L, et al. Prevalence and prognosis of Lynch syndrome and sporadic mismatch repair deficiency in endometrial cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021;113:1212–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab029
Grindedal EM, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Vasen H, Evans G, Sala P, Blanco I, et al. Survival in women with MMR mutations and ovarian cancer: a multicentre study in Lynch syndrome kindreds. J Med Genet 2010;47:99–102. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2009.068130
Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brölmann HA, Heintz AP. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. Cancer 2000;89:1765–72.
Seppälä TT, Dominguez-Valentin M, Crosbie EJ, Engel C, Aretz S, Macrae F, et al. Uptake of hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair variants: a prospective Lynch syndrome database report. Eur J Cancer 2021;148:124–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.02.022
Office for National Statistics. Past and Projected Period and Cohort Life Tables: 2020-Based, UK, 1981 to 2070; 2021. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/pastandprojecteddatafromtheperiodandcohortlifetables/latest (accessed 8 August 2022).
Snowsill TM, Ryan NAJ, Crosbie EJ. Cost-effectiveness of the Manchester approach to identifying Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer. J Clin Med 2020;9;1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061664
National Disease Registration Service (NDRS). CancerData: Staging Data in England;2021. URL: www.cancerdata.nhs.uk/stage_at_diagnosis (accessed 14 April 2022).
Lacey JV Jr, Sherman ME, Rush BB, Ronnett BM, Ioffe OB, Duggan MA, et al. Absolute risk of endometrial carcinoma during 20-year follow-up among women with endometrial hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:788–92. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.24.1315
Dabir PD, Bruggeling CE, van der Post RS, Dutilh BE, Hoogerbrugge N, Ligtenberg MJL, et al. Microsatellite instability screening in colorectal adenomas to detect Lynch syndrome patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Hum Genet 2020;28:277–86. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0538-7
National Health Service England. National Cost Collection for the NHS; 2022. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/costing-in-the-nhs/national-cost-collection (accessed 13 July 2022).
Jones K, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2021. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2021. https://doi.org/10.22024/UniKent/01.02.92342
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Interactive Costing Tool (iCT): Getting Started; 2019. URL: www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/interactive-costing-tool-ict-getting-started/12170 (accessed 13 July 2022).
Menon U, McGuire AJ, Raikou M, Ryan A, Davies SK, Burnell M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Br J Cancer 2017;117:619–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.222
Esselen KM, Cronin AM, Bixel K, Bookman MA, Burger RA, Cohn DE, et al. Use of CA-125 tests and computed tomographic scans for surveillance in ovarian cancer. JAMA Oncol 2016;2:1427–33. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1842
National Health Service Business Services Authority. Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) – Financial Year 2021/22; 2022. URL: https://opendata.nhsbsa.net/dataset/prescription-cost-analysis-pca-annual-statistics/resource/c0861d07-b0c7-440b-9657-e25b2a9fb769 (accessed 8 August 2022).
National Health Service Business Services Authority, NHS Prescription Services. NHS Electronic Drug Tariff (July 2022); 2022. URL:www.drugtariff.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/#/00818824-DC/DC00818821/Home (accessed 13 July 2022).
Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2022.
Pennington M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Karpinskyj C, Miners A, Taylor J, Manchanda R, et al. Long-term secondary care costs of endometrial cancer: a prospective cohort study nested within the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). PLOS ONE 2016;11:e0165539. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165539
Westwood M, Ramaekers B, Lang S, Grimm S, Deshpande S, de Kock S, et al. Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2018;22:1–264. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta22440
Laudicella M, Walsh B, Burns E, Smith PC. Cost of care for cancer patients in England: evidence from population-based patient-level data. Br J Cancer 2016;114:1286–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.77
Stinton C, Jordan M, Fraser H, Auguste P, Court R, Al-Khudairy L, et al. Testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2021;25:1–216. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25420
National Health Service Digital. Health Survey for England 2019: Adults’ Health. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2020.
Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health 2010;13:509–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x
Basu A, Dale W, Elstein A, Meltzer D. A linear index for predicting joint health-states utilities from single health-states utilities. Health Econ 2009;18:403–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1373
Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, von der Schulenburg JM. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 2005;6:124–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-004-0264-z
Djalalov S, Rabeneck L, Tomlinson G, Bremner KE, Hilsden R, Hoch JS. A review and meta-analysis of colorectal cancer utilities. Med Decis Making 2014;34:809–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x14536779
Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits. Med Decis Making 2016;18:S68–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x98018002s09
Strong M, Oakley JE, Brennan A. Estimating multiparameter partial expected value of perfect information from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample. Med Decis Making 2013;34:311–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x13505910
Ogwulu CB, Jackson LJ, Kinghorn P, Roberts TE. A systematic review of the techniques used to value temporary health states. Value Health 2017;20:1180–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.009
Wright DR, Wittenberg E, Swan JS, Miksad RA, Prosser LA. Methods for measuring temporary health states for cost-utility analyses. PharmacoEcon 2009;27:713–23. https://doi.org/10.2165/11317060-000000000-00000
Franic DM, Pathak DS, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years was a poor predictor of women’s willingness to pay in acute and chronic conditions: results of a survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.005
Craig BM, Rand K, Bailey H, Stalmeier PFM. Quality-adjusted life-years without constant proportionality. Value Health 2018;21:1124–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.02.004
Sakala MD, Carlos RC, Mendiratta-Lala M, Quint EH, Maturen KE. Understanding patient preference in female pelvic imaging. Acad Radiol 2018;25:439–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.10.011
Auranen A, Joutsiniemi T. A systematic review of gynecological cancer surveillance in women belonging to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) families. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:437–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01091.x
Helder-Woolderink JM, Blok EA, Vasen HFA, Hollema H, Mourits MJ, De Bock GH. Ovarian cancer in Lynch syndrome; a systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2016;55:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.12.005
Lim N, Hickey M, Young GP, Macrae FA, Kelly C. Screening and risk reducing surgery for endometrial or ovarian cancers in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32:646–55. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2021-003132
Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J, Blanco A, Kuppermann M, Boland CR, et al. Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:69. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00002