↓ Skip to main content

A model-based assessment of the cost–utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A model-based assessment of the cost–utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients
Published in
BMC Cancer, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1254-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tristan Snowsill, Nicola Huxley, Martin Hoyle, Tracey Jones-Hughes, Helen Coelho, Chris Cooper, Ian Frayling, Chris Hyde

Abstract

Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. Individuals with Lynch syndrome have an increased risk of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian and other cancers. Lynch syndrome remains underdiagnosed in the UK. Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is proposed as a method to identify more families affected by Lynch syndrome and offer surveillance to reduce cancer risks, although cost-effectiveness is viewed as a barrier to implementation. The objective of this project was to estimate the cost-utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in individuals with early-onset colorectal cancer in the NHS. A decision analytic model was developed which simulated diagnostic and long-term outcomes over a lifetime horizon for colorectal cancer patients with and without Lynch syndrome and for relatives of those patients. Nine diagnostic strategies were modelled which included microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, immunohistochemistry (IHC), BRAF mutation testing (methylation testing in a scenario analysis), diagnostic mutation testing and Amsterdam II criteria. Biennial colonoscopic surveillance was included for individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome and accepting surveillance. Prophylactic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (H-BSO) was similarly included for women diagnosed with Lynch syndrome. Costs from NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated and discounted at 3.5% per annum. All strategies included for the identification of Lynch syndrome were cost-effective versus no testing. The strategy with the greatest net health benefit was MSI followed by BRAF followed by diagnostic genetic testing, costing £5,491 per QALY gained over no testing. The effect of prophylactic H-BSO on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is uncertain and could outweigh the health benefits of testing, resulting in overall QALY loss. Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is predicted to be a cost-effective use of limited financial resources in England and Wales. Research is recommended into the cost-effectiveness of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in other associated cancers and into the impact of prophylactic H-BSO on HRQoL.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 119 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 15%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 31%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 32 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,105,535
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#700
of 8,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,137
of 265,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#33
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,332 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.