University of Exeter
Browse

Cost-effectiveness analysis of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer in the UK setting (article)

Download (1.82 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2025-08-01, 07:12 authored by TM Snowsill, NAJ Ryan, EJ Crosbie, IM Frayling, DG Evans, CJ Hyde
Background: Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer syndrome caused by constitutional pathogenic variants in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system, leading to increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and other cancers. The study aimed to identify the incremental costs and consequences of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer. Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of reflex testing strategies for identifying Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer taking the NHS perspective and a lifetime horizon. Model input parameters were sourced from various published sources. Consequences were measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/QALY was used. Results: Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome using MMR immunohistochemistry and MLH1 methylation testing was cost-effective versus no testing, costing £14 200 per QALY gained. There was uncertainty due to parameter imprecision, with an estimated 42% chance this strategy is not cost-effective compared with no testing. Age had a significant impact on costeffectiveness, with testing not predicted to be cost-effective in patients aged 65 years and over. Conclusions: Testing for Lynch syndrome in younger women with endometrial cancer using MMR immunohistochemistry and MLH1 methylation testing may be cost-effective. Age cut-offs may be controversial and adversely affect implementation.

History

Related Materials

Rights

© 2019 Snowsill et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Notes

This is the final version. Available on open access from Public Library of Science via the DOI in this record The dataset associated with this article is available in ORE: https://doi.org/10.24378/exe.1723

Journal

PLoS ONE

Publisher

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Version

  • Version of Record

Language

en

FCD date

2019-08-27T08:34:52Z

FOA date

2019-09-16T11:03:23Z

Citation

Vol. 14 (8), article e0221419

Department

  • Archive

Usage metrics

    University of Exeter

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Keywords

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC