Purpose: Lynch syndrome (LS) screening among patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer can decrease mortality in their affected first-degree relatives. In Germany, it is not yet clinical practice and the cost-effectiveness of different testing strategies is unknown. Methods:We developed a decision-analytic model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of LS screening from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance system. A total of 22 testing strategies considering family-history assessment, analysis of tumor samples (i.e., immunohistochemistry (IHC), microsatellite instability, and BRAF mutation testing) and genetic sequencing were analyzed. Life-years gained in relatives by closedmeshed colonoscopy and aspirin prophylaxis were estimated by Markov models. Uncertainty was assessed deterministically and probabilistically.Results: On average, detected mutation carriers gained 0.52 lifeyears (undiscounted: 1.34) by increased prevention. Most strategies were dominated, with three exceptions: family assessment by the Bethesda criteria followed by IHC and BRAF testing and genetic sequencing; IHC and BRAF testing and genetic sequencing; and direct sequencing of all index patients. Their incremental cost-effectiveness was €77,268, €253,258, and €4,188,036 per life-year gained, respectively. Conclusion:The results were less favorable than those of previous models. Chemoprevention appears to provide comparably low additional benefit and improves cost-effectiveness only slightly.

No abstract

background. The evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 * 28 genotyping is ambiguous and does not allow drawing valid conclusions for Germany. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing irinotecan-based chemotherapy compared to no testing from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance. Material and methods. A decision-analytic Markov model with a life time horizon was developed. No testing was compared to two genotype-dependent therapy strategies: 1) dose reduction by 25%; and 2) administration of a prophylactic G-CSF growth factor analog for homozygous and heterozygous patients. Probability, quality of life and cost parameters used in this study were based on published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainties. results. Strategy 1 dominated all remaining strategies. Compared to no testing, it resulted in only marginal QALY increases (0.0002) but a cost reduction of €580 per patient. Strategy 2 resulted in the same health gains but increased costs by €10 773. In the probabilistic analysis, genotyping and dose reduction was the optimal strategy in approximately 100% of simulations at a threshold of €50 000 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that uncertainty for this strategy originated primarily from costs for irinotecan-based chemotherapy, from the prevalence of neutropenia among heterozygous patients, and from whether dose reduction is applied to both homozygotes and heterozygotes or only to the former. conclusion. This model-based synthesis of the most recent evidence suggests that pharmacogenetic UGT1A1 testing prior to irinotecan-based chemotherapy dominates non-personalized colon cancer care in Germany. However, as structural uncertainty remains high, these results require validation in clinical practice, e.g. based on a managed-entry agreement.

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.

No abstract