The cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies for Lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer

PurposeTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies to identify Lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer and to offer targeted testing to relatives of patients with Lynch syndrome.MethodsWe calculated incremental costs per life-year saved for universal testing relative to no testing and age-targeted testing for strategies that use preliminary genetic tests (immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability) of tumors followed by sequencing of mismatch repair genes. We also calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for pairs of testing strategies.ResultsStrategies to test for Lynch syndrome in newly diagnosed colorectal tumors using preliminary tests before gene sequencing have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ≤$45,000 per life-year saved compared with no testing and ≤$75,000 per life-year saved compared with testing restricted to patients younger than 50 years. The lowest cost testing strategies, using immunohistochemistry as a preliminary test, cost ≤$25,000 per life-year saved relative to no testing and ≤$40,000 per life-year saved relative to testing only patients younger than 50 years. Other testing strategies have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ≥$700,000 per life-year saved relative to the lowest cost strategies. Increasing the number of relatives tested would improve cost-effectiveness.ConclusionLaboratory-based strategies using preliminary tests seem cost-effective from the US health care system perspective. Universal testing detects nearly twice as many cases of Lynch syndrome as targeting younger patients and has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparable with other preventive services. This finding provides support for a recent US recommendation to offer testing for Lynch syndrome to all newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer.     

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan?

Summary of RecommendationsThe Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group found that the evidence is currently insufficient to recommend for or against the routine use of UGT1A1 genotyping in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who are to be treated with irinotecan, with the intent of modifying the dose as a way to avoid adverse drug reactions (severe neutropenia).RationaleThe EGAPP Working Group (EWG) found no intervention trials showing that targeted dosing of irinotecan based on UGT1A1 genotyping could reduce the rates of two specific adverse drug events, severe (Grade 3–4) neutropenia or diarrhea. Observational studies indicate a significant association between UGT1A1 genotypes, particularly *28/*28 and *1/*28, and the occurrence of severe neutropenia. Observational studies also indicate a possible association between severe diarrhea and these UGT1A1 genotypes, but the association is not statistically significant. An additional finding was the suggestion that reducing irinotecan dose may result in patient harms due to diminished effectiveness of treatment in highest risk individuals (*28/*28 homozygotes), and that a higher dose might be warranted among individuals at lower risk of adverse drug events (*1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes). This review did not consider higher risk patients (e.g., having previous adverse reactions to irinotecan or additional risk factors for neutropenia).Analytic ValidityThe EWG found adequate evidence to conclude that analytic sensitivity and specificity were high for the commonly tested alleles, but evidence was inadequate for rarer alleles.Clinical ValidityThe EWG found adequate evidence of a significant association between UGT1A1 genotype and the incidence of severe neutropenia at standard doses of irinotecan. The EWG found adequate evidence of a possible association between genotype and severe diarrhea, but the effect was smaller and not statistically significant. The EWG found adequate evidence of a significantly higher rate of tumor response to standard irinotecan dosing among individuals with the genotype at highest risk of adverse drug events (*28/*28).Clinical UtilityThe EWG found no evidence to support clinical utility in the proposed clinical scenario. Preliminary modeling suggests that, even if targeted dosing were to be highly effective, it is not clear that benefits (reduced adverse drug events) outweigh harms (unresponsive tumors).Contextual IssuesAddressing patient preferences regarding risk of side effects and quality of life, versus aggressive treatment to potentially improve effectiveness, is expected practice. In addition, a recent study reported that risk for neutropenia was lower at lower irinotecan doses. For treatment regimens utilizing lower irinotecan doses, UGT1A1 genotype may not be a useful indicator of risk for adverse drug events. Further rigorous evaluation of UGT1A1 genotyping using current and promising irinotecan treatment protocols is warranted.     

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in adults with nonpsychotic depression treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

This statement summarizes the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group recommendations regarding CYP450 genetic testing in adult patients beginning treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and the supporting scientific evidence. EGAPP is a project developed by the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support a rigorous, evidence-based process for evaluating genetic tests and other genomic applications that are in transition from research to clinical and public health practice in the United States. A key goal of the EGAPP Working Group is to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding clinical genomic applications and to establish clear linkage to the supporting scientific evidence. The Working Group members are nonfederal experts in genetics, laboratory medicine, and clinical epidemiology convened to establish methods and processes; set priorities for review topics; participate in technical expert panels for commissioned evidence reviews; publish recommendations; and provide guidance and feedback on other project activities.Summary of Recommendation The EGAPP Working Group found insufficient evidence to support a recommendation for or against use of CYP450 testing in adults beginning SSRI treatment for non-psychotic depression. In the absence of supporting evidence, and with consideration of other contextual issues, EGAPP discourages use of CYP450 testing for patients beginning SSRI treatment until further clinical trials are completed.RationaleThe EGAPP Working Group found no evidence linking testing for CYP450 to clinical outcomes in adults treated with SSRIs. While some studies of a single SSRI dose in healthy patients report an association between genotypic CYP450 drug metabolizer status and circulating SSRI levels, this association was not supported by studies of patients receiving ongoing SSRI treatment. Further, CYP450 genotypes are not consistently associated with the patient outcomes of interest, including clinical response to SSRI treatment or adverse events as a result of treatment. No evidence was available showing that the results of CYP450 testing influenced SSRI choice or dose and improved patient outcomes, or was useful in medical, personal, or public health decision-making. In the absence of evidence supporting clinical utility, it is not known if potential benefits from CYP450 testing will outweigh potential harms. Potential harms may include increased cost without impact on clinical decision making or improvement in patient outcomes, less effective treatment with SSRI drugs, or inappropriate use of genotype information in the management of other drugs metabolized by CYP450 enzymes.     

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: Genomic profiling to assess cardiovascular risk to improve cardiovascular health

Summary of RecommendationsThe Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group (EWG) found insufficient evidence to recommend testing for the 9p21 genetic variant or 57 other variants in 28 genes (listed in Table 1) to assess risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population, specifically heart disease and stroke. The EWG found that the magnitude of net health benefit from use of any of these tests alone or in combination is negligible. The EWG discourages clinical use unless further evidence supports improved clinical outcomes. Based on the available evidence, the overall certainty of net health benefit is deemed “Low.”RationaleIt has been suggested that an improvement in CVD risk classification (adjusting intermediate risk of CVD into high- or low-risk categories) might lead to management changes (e.g., earlier initiation or higher rates of medical interventions, or targeted recommendations for behavioral change) that improve CVD outcomes. In the absence of direct evidence to support this possibility, this review sought indirect evidence aimed at documenting the extent to which genomic profiling alters CVD risk estimation, alone and in combination with traditional risk factors, and the extent to which risk reclassification improves health outcomes.Analytic validityAssay-related evidence on available genomic profiling tests was deemed inadequate. However, based on existing technologies that have been or may be used and on data from two of the companies performing such testing, the analytic sensitivity and specificity of tests for individual gene variants might be at least satisfactory.Clinical validityTwenty-nine gene candidates were evaluated, with 58 different gene variant/disease associations. Evidence on clinical validity was rated inadequate for 34 of these associations (59%) and adequate for 23 (40%). Inadequate grades were based on limited evidence, poor replication, existence of possible biases, or combinations of these factors. For heart disease (25 combined associations) and stroke (13 combined associations), profiling provided areas under the receiver operator characteristics curve of 66% and 57%, respectively. Only the association of 9p21 variants with heart disease had convincing evidence of a per-allele odds ratio of between 1.2 and 1.3; this was the highest effect size for any variant/disease combination with at least adequate evidence. Although the 9p21 association seems to be independent of traditional risk factors, there is adequate evidence that the improvement in risk prediction is, at best, small.Clinical utilityClinical utility was not formally evaluated in any of the studies reported to date, including for 9p21. As a result, no evidence was available on the balance of benefits and harms. Also, there was no direct evidence available to assess the health benefits and harms of adding these markers to traditional risk factors (e.g., Framingham Risk Score). However, the estimated additional benefit from adding genomic markers to traditional risk factors was found to be negligible.Contextual IssuesPrevention of CVD is a public health priority. Improvements in outcomes associated with genomic profiling could have important impacts. Traditional risk factors such as those used in the Framingham Risk Scores have an advantage in clinical screening and risk assessment strategies because they measure the actual targets for therapy (e.g., lipid levels and blood pressure). To add value, genomic testing should lead to better outcomes than those achievable by assessment and treatment of traditional risk factors alone. Some issues important for clinical utility remain unknown, such as the biological mechanism underlying the most convincing marker's (9p21) association with CVD; the level of risk that changes intervention; whether long-term disease outcomes will improve; how individuals ordering direct to consumer tests will understand/respond to test results and interact with the health care system; and whether direct to consumer testing will motivate behavior change or amplify potential harms.     

Molecular testing in colorectal cancer: diagnosis of Lynch syndrome and personalized cancer medicine

Currently, molecular testing in colorectal cancer (CRC) is aimed at detecting Lynch syndrome and predicting response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies. However, CRC is a complex disease, with at least 3 molecular pathways of carcinogenesis. The importance of the EGFR signaling pathway in colorectal carcinogenesis is underscored by the availability of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of some metastatic CRCs. Potentially, mutations in any of the genes in the EGFR signaling pathway may be associated with prognosis and may predict response to anti-EGFR or other targeted therapies. Although not currently the standard of care, molecular testing of CRCs is expanding to include mutational analysis of the genes in the EGFR pathway, in addition to more widely performed tests for identifying cancers with high microsatellite instability. Multiplex molecular prognostic panels for therapeutic decision making in stage II CRCs also represent expanding use of molecular testing for this common cancer.     

Implementing screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: summary of a public health/clinical collaborative meeting

Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer, accounting for approximately 3% of all colorectal cancer cases in the United States. In 2009, an evidence-based review process conducted by the independent Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group resulted in a recommendation to offer genetic testing for Lynch syndrome to all individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, with the intent of reducing morbidity and mortality in family members. To explore issues surrounding implementation of this recommendation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary working group meeting in September 2010. This article reviews background information regarding screening for Lynch syndrome and summarizes existing clinical paradigms, potential implementation strategies, and conclusions which emerged from the meeting. It was recognized that widespread implementation will present substantial challenges, and additional data from pilot studies will be needed. However, evidence of feasibility and population health benefits and the advantages of considering a public health approach were acknowledged. Lynch syndrome can potentially serve as a model to facilitate the development and implementation of population-level programs for evidence-based genomic medicine applications involving follow-up testing of at-risk relatives. Such endeavors will require multilevel and multidisciplinary approaches building on collaborative public health and clinical partnerships.     

Worldwide prevalence of Lynch syndrome in patients with colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeLynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome, with an estimated prevalence of 2% to 3% of CRC. A prevalence study is needed to provide accurate estimates of the true prevalence of LS.MethodsMEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, and Web of Science were searched. Prevalence was calculated by random effects meta-analysis models. I² score was used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Meta-regression was performed for between-study variance.ResultsA total of 51 studies were included in this review. The overall pooled yield of LS screening was 2.2% based on all methods of detection. Studies performing germline tests on all participants with CRC reported higher prevalence (5.1%) as opposed to studies only performing germline tests on participants with tumors with mismatch repair deficiency (1.6%) or microsatellite instability (1.1%). Selected cohorts of CRC had a higher prevalence of germline LS diagnoses.ConclusionLS prevalence across multiple ethnic, geographic, and clinical populations is remarkably similar. Universal germline testing of patients presenting with cancer identifies that most CRCs are attributed to LS. Young patients presenting with CRC and those who fulfill criteria for a familial risk provide the highest returns for LS identification. Our study supports the universal germline CRC screening for LS.     

BRCA1/2 testing in newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients without prior genetic counselling: the DNA-BONus study

Germline BRCA1/2 testing of breast and ovarian cancer patients is growing rapidly as the result affects both treatment and cancer prevention in patients and relatives. Through the DNA-BONus study we offered BRCA1/2 testing and familial risk assessment to all new patients with breast (N=893) or ovarian (N=122) cancer diagnosed between September 2012 and April 2015, irrespective of family history or age, and without prior face-to-face genetic counselling. BRCA1/2 testing was accepted by 405 (45.4%) and 83 (68.0%) of the patients with breast or ovarian cancer, respectively. A pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant was found in 7 (1.7%) of the breast cancer patients and 19 (22.3%) of the ovarian cancer patients. In retrospect, all BRCA1/2 mutation carriers appeared to fulfill current criteria for BRCA1/2 testing. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores showed that the mean levels of anxiety and depression were comparable to those reported for breast and gynecological cancer patients in general, with a significant drop in anxiety symptoms during a 6-month follow-up period, during which the test result was forwarded to the patients. These results show that BRCA1/2 testing is well accepted in newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients. Current test criteria based on age and family history are sufficient to identify most BRCA1/2 mutation carriers among breast cancer patients. We recommend germline BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer because of the high prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants.     

Streamlined genetic education is effective in preparing women newly diagnosed with breast cancer for decision making about treatment-focused genetic testing: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial

PurposeIncreasingly, women newly diagnosed with breast cancer are being offered treatment-focused genetic testing (TFGT). As the demand for TFGT increases, streamlined methods of genetic education are needed.MethodsIn this noninferiority trial, women aged <50 years with either a strong family history (FH+) or other features suggestive of a germ-line mutation (FH−) were randomized before definitive breast cancer surgery to receive TFGT education either as brief written materials (intervention group (IG)) or during a genetic counseling session at a familial cancer clinic (usual-care group (UCG)). Women completed self-report questionnaires at four time points over 12 months.ResultsA total of 135 women were included in the analysis, all of whom opted for TFGT. Decisional conflict about TFGT choice (primary outcome) was not inferior in the IG compared with the UCG (noninferiority margin of −10; mean difference = 2.45; 95% confidence interval −2.87–7.76; P = 0.36). Costs per woman counseled in the IG were significantly lower (AUD$89) compared with the UCG (AUD$173; t(115) = 6.02; P < 0.001).ConclusionA streamlined model of educating women newly diagnosed with breast cancer about TFGT seems to be a cost-effective way of delivering education while ensuring that women feel informed and supported in their decision making, thus freeing resources for other women to access TFGT.Genet Med 19 4, 448–456.     

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: Routine testing for Factor V Leiden (R506Q) and prothrombin (20210G>A) mutations in adults with a history of idiopathic venous thromboembolism and their adult family members

Summary of RecommendationsThe Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group found adequate evidence to recommend against routine testing for Factor V Leiden (FVL) and/or prothrombin 20210G>A (PT) in the following circumstances: (1) adults with idiopathic venous thromboembolism (VTE). In such cases, longer term secondary prophylaxis to avoid recurrence offers similar benefits to patients with and without one or more of these mutations. (2) Asymptomatic adult family members of patients with VTE and an FVL or PT mutation, for the purpose of considering primary prophylactic anticoagulation. Potential benefits are unlikely to exceed potential harms. The overall certainty of these findings was deemed “moderate.” The evidence was insufficient to determine whether FVL/PT testing might have clinical utility in some circumstances, such as for identifying FVL homozygosity among asymptomatic family members of adults with idiopathic VTE or counseling patients about the risks and benefits of antithrombotic therapy. Based on the available evidence, the certainty of net health benefit was deemed “low.” The recommendations do not extend to patients with other risk factors for thrombosis, such as contraceptive use, as the evidence review that serves as the basis for the recommendations focused primarily on idiopathic VTE.RationaleIn developing these recommendations the EGAPP Working Group considered evidence in the following three areas.Analytic ValidityThere is adequate evidence that testing accurately and reliably detects the R506Q (FVL) and 20210G>A (PT) variants in the Factor V and PT genes, respectively (a more complete definition of analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility is contained under the “Clinical Considerations” section).Clinical ValidityThe presence of a heterozygous FVL variant seems to be a weak risk factor for recurrence of VTE (odds ratio [OR]: 1.56). Rare homozygous FVL mutations present somewhat greater risks of VTE recurrence (OR: 2.65). The evidence for this increased risk is convincing, but the magnitude of excess risk is not as great as previously thought. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about excess VTE recurrence risk resulting from compound heterozygosity (FVL and PT), but it is likely to be at least as high as with FVL alone. The OR for compound heterozygosity is 6.69. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about VTE recurrence risks associated with PT mutations alone. For family members of index VTE cases, there is convincing evidence that both heterozygosity and homozygosity for FVL are associated with higher risks for VTE occurrence (ORs 3.49 and 17.84, respectively) than for family members without FVL variants.Clinical UtilityThere is convincing evidence that longer term secondary prophylaxis after an initial idiopathic VTE event yields comparable benefits to those with and without a FVL or PT mutation. For asymptomatic family members of index cases, no prophylaxis trials have been reported. Hence, there is no direct evidence of particular benefit to family members. Potential net harm is possible if primary prophylaxis is administered to asymptomatic family members with one or more mutations, because the absolute risk of an initial VTE event is low, and the risk of anticoagulant-induced hemorrhage is relatively high.     

Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients

The psychological aspects of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in cancer patients (diagnostic genetic testing) have so far received less attention than predictive genetic testing in unaffected persons. Our study is aimed at gaining insight into the psychological aspects of diagnostic genetic testing and at formulating practical recommendations for counseling. Cancer patients often play a key role in the communication of information to relatives because they were the first individuals to be tested in the family. The present article focuses on the communication to close and distant relatives about the hereditary cancer, the genetic test and its result. Participants previously diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer, with a family history of these cancers and who requested DNA-testing, were eligible for the study. Of the 83 eligible patients who could be contacted, 63 participated (response rate = 76%). Twenty-six participants were members of a family where a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation was detected. The DNA-analysis in the family of 37 participants had not revealed any mutation. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews and psychological tests and questionnaires. The dissemination of information was largely focused on first-degree relatives. Communication to distant relatives about the genetic test and its result was problematic. Other than the genetic test result and age as "objective" predictors of informing distant relatives, little and/or superficial contact seemed to be the major subjective barrier to informing distant relatives. Furthermore, the knowledge about HBOC of these messengers reveals several shortcomings. Communication within the family should receive special attention during counseling.     

BRCA genetic testing of individuals from families with low prevalence of cancer: experiences of carriers and implications for population screening

PurposeBRCA genes are associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Guidelines worldwide currently recommend BRCA genetic testing in asymptomatic individuals only if they belong to “high-risk” families. However, population screening for BRCA1/2 may be the logical next step in populations with a high prevalence of founder mutations, such as Ashkenazi Jews. This study aimed to explore (i) the impact of a positive BRCA genetic test result on individuals who have neither a personal history nor a familial history of cancer and (ii) their attitudes toward the concept of population screening.MethodsSemistructured in-depth interviews were carried out with 14 Ashkenazi Jewish women who were asymptomatic BRCA carriers and who belonged to families with low prevalence of cancer.ResultsThree main findings emerged: (i) having no family history of cancer was a source of optimism but also confusion; (ii) engaging in intensified medical surveillance and undergoing preventive procedures was perceived as health-promoting but also tended to induce a sense of physical and psychological vulnerability; and (iii) there was overall support for BRCA population screening, with some reservations.ConclusionWomen belonging to low-cancer-prevalence families within a “high-risk” ethnic community view BRCA genetic testing positively despite the difficulties entailed, because it allows prevention or early detection of cancer. However, implementing a BRCA population screening program should be carried out with proper pre- and post-testing preparation and support for the individuals undergoing testing.Genet Med advance online publication 5 April 2012     

Magnitude and determinants of first-time and repeat testing among individuals with newly diagnosed HIV infection between 2000 and 2001 in Alberta, Canada: results from population-based laboratory surveillance

The purpose of the study was to determine the magnitude and predictors of first-time and repeat testing for HIV infection among newly diagnosed cases in Alberta, Canada, and to determine the extent of co-infection with hepatitis C (HCV) and hepatitis B (HBV). Using the Provincial Laboratory for Public Health (PLPH) database, all newly diagnosed HIV cases in Alberta between 2000 and 2001 were identified and the testing history for HIV, HCV, and HBV among these cases since 1992 was reviewed. Significant differences in the characteristics of first-time and repeat testers were identified using the chi test, and where appropriate, the Fisher exact test. The independent variables examined included age, gender, risk factors, area and population of residence, testing agency, and co-infection with HCV and HBV. Logistical regression analyses were conducted to further explore independent factors associated with first-time vs. repeat testing for HIV infection. Of the 398 cases, 278 (69.8%) were newly diagnosed at their first test for HIV infection, 73.1% during 2000 and 67.3% during 2001 (P = 0.81). Among repeat testers, the mean number of previous negative tests was 3.4 (range = 2-11 tests). The median interval between the last negative and first positive test was 648 days (range = 53-2678 days). Repeat testers were 1.9 times more likely to be injecting drug users and 1.8 times more likely to reside in Northern Alberta. Among those with a laboratory test result in the PLPH database, 53.7% were positive for HCV, 47.7 and 64.5% of first-time and repeat testers, respectively; and 19.1% were positive for HBV, 22 and 13.6% of first-time and repeat testers, respectively. A high proportion of HIV cases newly diagnosed between 2000 and 2001 in Alberta had no previous testing history for HIV infection. Even among repeat testers, HIV testing was sought infrequently. There are significant regional differences within Alberta in the characteristics of the HIV epidemic and associated test-seeking behaviors. These data reinforce the need to make the most of each test-seeking event with proper counseling and other relevant support services. Given the high prevalence of co-infection with HCV, these results clearly support the need for testing and counseling strategies to take into account additional risks associated with HCV infections.     

The family's functioning with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the mother: The development of an explanatory model

Despite the high rates of breast cancer in the child-rearing mother, there is extremely limited research on the effects of the illness on the children, marriage, and parent-child relationship. The current study tested an explanatory model of family functioning with breast cancer based on data obtained from standardized questionnaires from 80 diagnosed mothers and partners with young school-age children. Path analysis results for data obtained from both the mothers and the partners revealed a similar pattern. More frequently experienced illness demands were associated with higher levels of parental depressed mood which negatively affected the marriage. When the marriage was less well adjusted, it negatively affected the family's coping behavior. Household functioning was positively affected by heightened coping activity and by higher levels of marital adjustment. Children functioned better when the non-ill parent more frequently interacted with them and their families coped more frequently with their problems.This research was supported by a grant from the Center for Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health (R01-NR-01000), and an American Cancer Society Oncology Nursing Professorship awarded to the senior author.