Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T08:26:25.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cost-effectiveness of surveillance programs for families at high and moderate risk of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2007

Kim R. Olsen
Affiliation:
DSI Danish Institute for Health Services Research
Stig E. Bojesen
Affiliation:
Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg
Anne-Marie M. Gerdes
Affiliation:
Odense University Hospital
Karen Lindorff-Larsen
Affiliation:
Aalborg Hospital, Aarhus University
Inge T. Bernstein
Affiliation:
Hvidovre Hospital

Abstract

Objectives: Surveillance programs are recommended to both families at high risk (Amsterdam-positive families with known- and unknown mutation) and moderate risk (families not fulfilling all Amsterdam criteria) of colorectal cancer (CRC). Cost-effectiveness has so far only been estimated for the group at high risk. The aim of the present study is to determine cost-effectiveness of surveillance programs where families at both high and moderate risk of HNPCC participate.

Methods: A decision analytic model (Markov model) is developed to assess surveillance programs where families at high and moderate risk of HNPCC are offered surveillance from age 25 and age 45, respectively. The model includes costs for all families referred to genetic counseling, including genetic risk assessment, mutation analysis, and surveillance in relevant families with or without known mutation, plus the costs related to any surgical treatment. The risk of metachronous CRC is also modeled.

Results: Incremental costs per life year gained are estimated to be €980 when families at both high and moderate risk of HNPCC undergo surveillance (€508 for high risk and €1600 for moderate risk) and €1947 when the moderate risk group is evaluated genetically but not offered surveillance. Sensitivity analysis showed these findings to be robust, although cost-effectiveness can be improved in cases of more conservative referrals to genetic counseling.

Conclusions: The result for high risk families confirms the findings in similar studies. Somewhat surprisingly, cost-effectiveness improves when surveillance of the moderate risk groups are included in the decision model.

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, et al. 1999 Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer. 81: 214218.Google Scholar
Bernstein I, Bisgaard ML. 2003. HNPCC-registret. Center for arvelig tarmkræft. Årsrapport 2002. Hvidovre: HNPCC-registret;
Bernstein I, Bisgaard ML. 2004. HNPCC-registret. Center for arvelig tarmkræft. Årsrapport 2003. Hvidovre: HNPCC-registret;
Bernstein IT, Bisgaard ML, Myrhøj T. 2003 Forebyggelse af kolorektal cancer i hereditær non-polyposis kolorektal cancer-familier. Ugeskr Læger. 165: 221225.Google Scholar
Brown ML, Kessler LG. 1995 The use of gene tests to detect hereditary predisposition to cancer: Economic considerations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 87: 11311136.Google Scholar
Brown ML, Kessler LG. 1996 Use of gene tests to detect hereditary predisposition to cancer: What do we know about cost effectiveness? Int J Cancer. 69: 5557.Google Scholar
Danmarks Statistik. Befolkningens bevægelser 2003. 2004.
Devlin N, Parkin D. 2004 Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis 1. Health Econ. 13: 437452.Google Scholar
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, et al. 2005 Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). N Engl J Med. 352: 18511860.Google Scholar
Järvinen H, Mecklin JP, Sistonen P. 1995 Screening reduces colorectal cancer rate in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 108: 14051411.Google Scholar
Järvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H, et al. 2000 Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 118: 829834.Google Scholar
Kievit W, de Bruin JH, Adang EM, et al. 2005 Cost effectiveness of a new strategy to identify HNPCC patients. Gut. 54: 97102.Google Scholar
Lynch HT, Lynch PM. 2005 Molecular screening for the Lynch syndrome–better than family history? N Engl J Med. 352: 19201922.Google Scholar
Myrhøj T, Bisgaard ML, Bernstein I, et al. 1997 Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: Clinical features and survival. Results from the Danish HNPCC register. Scand J Gastroenterol. 32: 572576.Google Scholar
Pigatto F, Bateman A, Bunyan D, et al. 2004; Economic and practical factors in diagnosing HNPCC using clinical criteria, immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability analysis. 2: 175184. Ref Type: Generic.Google Scholar
Ramsey SD, Clarke L, Etzioni R, et al. 2001 Cost-effectiveness of microsatellite instability screening as a method for detecting hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 135 (Pt 1): 577588.Google Scholar
Reyes CM, Allen BA, Terdiman JP, Wilson LS. 2002 Comparison of selection strategies for genetic testing of patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Cancer. 95: 18481856.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Vasen HF, Pekka-Mecklin J, et al. 1997 Rectal cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer after abdominal colectomy. International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. Ann Surg. 225: 202207.Google Scholar
Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. 1997 Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics. 11: 159168.Google Scholar
Statens Institut for Medicinsk Teknologivurdering. 2001. Kræft i tyktarm og endetarm. Diagnostik og screening. København: Statens Institut for Medicinsk Teknologivurdering;
Sundhedsstyrelsen. Takstsystem 2004. 2003. Vejledning. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen;
Vasen HF, van Ballegooijen M, Buskens E, et al. 1998 A cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal screening of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma gene carriers. Cancer. 82: 16321637.Google Scholar
Vasen HF, Wijnen JT, Menko FH, et al. 1996 Cancer risk in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer diagnosed by mutation analysis. Gastroenterology. 110: 10201027.Google Scholar