Lynch syndrome screening strategies among newly diagnosed endometrial cancer patients.

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.37). 10/2009; 114(3):530-6. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b11ecc
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To estimate the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for Lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed endometrial cancer patients.
A decision analysis compared four strategies to screen women with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome: 1) Amsterdam criteria strategy, where full gene sequencing was performed for women who meet Amsterdam criteria; 2) Sequence-all strategy, where full gene sequencing was performed for all women with endometrial cancer; 3) Sequence aged younger than 60 years strategy, where full gene sequencing was performed for women aged younger than 60 years with endometrial cancer; and 4) immunohistochemistry/single gene strategy, where immunohistochemistry was performed for the DNA mismatch repair genes for all women after single gene sequencing for specific women lacking protein expression. Prevalence rates, probabilities of immunohistochemistry staining loss, and gene mutation rates were calculated from published data. Costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement rates. Cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for each strategy.
For the estimated 40,000 women diagnosed annually with endometrial cancer, the sequence-all strategy detects 920 patients with Lynch syndrome at a cost of $105 million. The Amsterdam criteria give the least-expensive strategy ($7 million), but detect the fewest patients (n=83) with Lynch syndrome. The immunohistochemistry/single gene sequencing strategy detects 858 patients at a cost of $17 million; this strategy has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $13,812. The sequence aged younger than 60 years strategy was less effective and more costly than other strategies.
Of the strategies studied, immunohistochemical evaluation of tumor specimens for mismatch repair protein expression after single gene sequencing for patients with endometrial cancer is a cost-effective strategy for detecting Lynch syndrome.
: III.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Molecular diagnostic testing of endometrial carcinomas in the pathology laboratory has recently emerged as a key component of the clinical evaluation of Lynch syndrome in many centers. Testing modalities involve immunohistochemical and PCR-based analyses. This article outlines the routine application of these analyses, provides a practical guide for troubleshooting some of the common technical issues related to their performance, and reviews common pitfalls in their interpretation. Discrepancies between tissue testing and genetic testing results are discussed in the context of the current understanding of endometrial cancer biology. The merits of universal versus targeted tissue testing based on clinical patient history and histological tumor appearance are also addressed.
    Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 05/2014; · 1.80 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify patients with endometrial cancer with potential Lynch-related DNA mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression defects and to explore the role of these defects in screening for LS.
    International journal of clinical and experimental pathology. 01/2014; 7(10):7297-303.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Women with Lynch syndrome (LS) are at equal or higher risk for gynecologic cancers compared with their risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). Endometrial cancer (EC) often precedes CRC as patients' sentinel malignancy. Identifying these patients is believed to reduce their substantial risk for synchronous and metachronous tumors and has profound implications for reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality in other family members. Routine screening of patients with CRC for LS has become increasingly common, but routine screening for LS in women with EC is rarely performed. Current screening guidelines for identifying LS in women with EC vary but rely heavily on patient age and personal/family history, with or without incorporation of tumor pathology. Because each of these strategies misses a significant proportion of women with LS, more inclusive screening strategies that make good economic and clinical sense are needed. In recent years, emerging medicoeconomic evidence supports the fact that screening EC patients for LS may be cost-effective. Implementation of such a strategy requires multidisciplinary collaboration and partnership.
    Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology. 09/2013; 4(5):322-30.