PCN39 Economic Evaluation of Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening Protocols among Newly Diagnosed Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Jihua Hao,Dina Hassen,James M. Gudgeon,Susan M. Snyder,Heather Hampel,Martha R. Williams,Ravi Sharaf,Chelong Lu,Jeannie Williams,Victoria Schlieder,Andrea Rahm
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.04.131
IF: 5.156
2021-01-01
Value in Health
Abstract:The objective of this study was to conduct an updated economic analysis, from a healthcare system perspective, to evaluate the relative effectiveness and efficiency of multiple Lynch syndrome (LS) screening protocols among newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) patients that are deemed viable based on current evidence. We developed decision analytic models representing eight LS screening protocols for a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients. Model assumptions and parameter values were based on literature, expert opinion, and unpublished data. All costs were reported in 2018 US dollars. For identifying LS cases, compared to immunohistochemistry (IHC) (sensitivity 80.56%, 73.81%-81.97%; specificity 99.98%, 99.89%-99.99%) and microsatellite instability (MSI) (sensitivity 82.50%, 76.15%- 84.03%; specificity 99.99%, 99.92%-100.00%) protocols, direct germline sequencing (DGS) protocol provided the best sensitivity (99.90%, 95% CI: 99.57%-99.93%) and similar specificity (99.50%, 97.28%-99.85%). Tumor sequencing to germline sequencing (TSGS) protocol provided better sensitivity (99.42%, 96.55%-99.63%) but slightly less specificity (96.58%, 96.46%-96.60%). MSI to germline sequencing improves sensitivity (85.04%, 79.40%-86.82%) from MSI protocol. The IHC protocol was most efficient at $20,082 per LS case identified, compared to MSI ($22,988), MSI to germline sequencing ($23,726), DGS ($31,365), and TSGS ($104,394) protocols. Adding double-somatic testing to IHC and MSI protocols did not change sensitivity and specificity, increased costs by 6% and 3.5%, respectively, but reduced the number of unexplained cases by 70% and 50%, respectively. Threshold analysis showed that DGS would be as efficient as the IHC protocol when the cost of germline sequencing declines under $368. DGS and TSGS protocols were the most effective protocols. IHC remained the most efficient protocol but missed more LS cases. DGS would be as efficient as the IHC protocol if the cost of germline sequencing continues to decline. Until then, IHC and MSI protocols with double-somatic testing would be the optimal choices.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?