A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.     

An ultrasonographic monitoring of skin condition in patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancers

Radiodermatitis is one of the commonest side effects of radiotherapy. They are usually assessed by semi‐quantitative clinical scores, which are not validated and may be subject to inter‐observer variability. A few previous studies suggested that high‐frequency ultrasonography (HF‐USG) is useful in the assessment of the acute phase of radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients. (a) To monitor skin changes by HF‐USG during the course of radiotherapy due to head and neck cancers, and (b) to determine whether there is any connection between skin sonograms and the skin scoring criteria. This prospective, observational study includes patients diagnosed with head and neck cancers, treated with radiotherapy or concomitant chemoradiation. The final analysis includes six patients. In every patient, the HF‐USG as well as dermatological assessment (target lesion score—TLS and CACE v. 4.0) were performed 4×: before, in the middle, day after, and 3 months after radiotherapy. There were significant differences between non‐irradiated skin thickness and thickness of skin with clinically obvious radiodermatitis (TLS grade 1‐4; P < .0001), as well as between irradiated, unchanged skin thickness (TLS grade 0) and thickness of skin with clinically obvious radiodermatitis (TLS grade 1‐4; P = .0002). There was no significant difference between non‐irradiated and irradiated, unchanged skin thickness (TLS grade 0; P = .9318). In four patients, we demonstrated subepidermal low echogenic band (SLEB). HF‐USG can be useful tool to noninvasive and objective assessment of skin changes during radiotherapy.