{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Guzauskas GF"],"funding":["NHGRI NIH HHS"],"pagination":["1017-1026"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9673900"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["24(5)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Purpose</h4>Genomic screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) could prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) by identifying high-risk patients and instituting intensive CRC screening. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of a population-wide LS genomic screening vs family history-based screening alone in an unselected US population.<h4>Methods</h4>We developed a decision-analytic Markov model including health states for precancer, stage-specific CRC, and death and assumed an inexpensive test cost of $200. We conducted sensitivity and threshold analyses to evaluate model uncertainty.<h4>Results</h4>Screening unselected 30-year-olds for LS variants resulted in 48 (95% credible range [CR] = 35-63) fewer overall CRC cases per 100,000 screened individuals, leading to 187 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 95% CR = 123-260) gained at an incremental cost of $24.6 million (95% CR = $20.3 million-$29.1 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $132,200, with an 8% and 71% probability of being cost-effective at $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds, respectively.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Population LS screening may be cost-effective in younger patient populations under a $150,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY threshold and with a relatively inexpensive test cost. Further reductions in testing costs and/or the inclusion of LS testing within a broader multiplex screening panel are needed for screening to become highly cost-effective."],"journal":["Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics"],"pubmed_title":["Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch syndrome in the United States."],"pmcid":["PMC9673900"],"funding_grant_id":["R01 HG009694"],"pubmed_authors":["Veenstra DL","Graves JA","Hao J","Guzauskas GF","Snyder SR","Williams MS","Jiang S","Spencer SJ","Peterson JF","Garbett S","Zhou Z"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch syndrome in the United States.","description":"<h4>Purpose</h4>Genomic screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) could prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) by identifying high-risk patients and instituting intensive CRC screening. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of a population-wide LS genomic screening vs family history-based screening alone in an unselected US population.<h4>Methods</h4>We developed a decision-analytic Markov model including health states for precancer, stage-specific CRC, and death and assumed an inexpensive test cost of $200. We conducted sensitivity and threshold analyses to evaluate model uncertainty.<h4>Results</h4>Screening unselected 30-year-olds for LS variants resulted in 48 (95% credible range [CR] = 35-63) fewer overall CRC cases per 100,000 screened individuals, leading to 187 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 95% CR = 123-260) gained at an incremental cost of $24.6 million (95% CR = $20.3 million-$29.1 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $132,200, with an 8% and 71% probability of being cost-effective at $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds, respectively.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Population LS screening may be cost-effective in younger patient populations under a $150,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY threshold and with a relatively inexpensive test cost. Further reductions in testing costs and/or the inclusion of LS testing within a broader multiplex screening panel are needed for screening to become highly cost-effective.","dates":{"release":"2022-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2022 May","modification":"2024-11-15T15:37:46.273Z","creation":"2024-11-15T15:37:46.273Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC9673900","cross_references":{"pubmed":["35227606"],"doi":["10.1016/j.gim.2022.01.017"]}}