Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch syndrome in the United States

Multigenic panels in breast cancer: Clinical utility and management of patients with pathogenic variants other than BRCA1/2

Multigene panels can analyze high and moderate/intermediate penetrance genes that predispose to breast cancer (BC), providing an opportunity to identify at-risk individuals within affected families. However, considering the complexity of different pathogenic variants and correlated clinical manifestations, a multidisciplinary team is needed to effectively manage BC. A classification of pathogenic variants included in multigene panels was presented in this narrative review to evaluate their clinical utility in BC. Clinical management was discussed for each category and focused on BC, including available evidence regarding the multidisciplinary and integrated management of patients with BC. The integration of both genetic testing and counseling is required for customized decisions in therapeutic strategies and preventative initiatives, as well as for a defined multidisciplinary approach, considering the continuous evolution of guidelines and research in the field.

Exome Sequencing Identifies Carriers of the Autosomal Dominant Cancer Predisposition Disorders Beyond Current Practice Guideline Recommendations

PURPOSE

The autosomal dominant cancer predisposition disorders hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS) are genetic conditions for which early identification and intervention have a positive effect on the individual and public health. The goals of this study were to determine whether germline genetic screening using exome sequencing could be used to efficiently identify carriers of HBOC and LS.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from three geographically and racially diverse sites in the United States (Rochester, MN; Phoenix, AZ; Jacksonville, FL). Participants underwent Exome+ sequencing (Helix Inc, San Mateo, CA) and return of results for specific genetic findings: HBOC (BRCA1 and BRCA1) and LS (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM). Chart review was performed to collect demographics and personal and family cancer history.

RESULTS

To date, 44,306 participants have enrolled in Tapestry. Annotation and interpretation of all variants in genes for HBOC and LS resulted in the identification of 550 carriers (prevalence, 1.24%), which included 387 with HBOC (27.2% BRCA1, 42.8% BRCA2) and 163 with LS (12.3% MSH6, 8.8% PMS2, 4.5% MLH1, 3.8% MSH2, and 0.2% EPCAM). More than half of these participants (52.1%) were newly diagnosed carriers with HBOC and LS. In all, 39.2% of HBOC/LS carriers did not satisfy National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic evaluation. NCCN criteria were less commonly met in underrepresented minority populations versus self-reported White race (51.5% v 37.5%, P = .028).

CONCLUSION

Our results emphasize the need for wider utilization of germline genetic sequencing for enhanced screening and detection of individuals who have LS and HBOC cancer predisposition syndromes.

Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Population Health Screening in Adults: A Review of Modeling Studies and Future Directions

BACKGROUND

Detecting actionable health risks for genetic diseases prior to symptomatic presentation at population scale using genomic test technologies is a preventive health innovation being piloted in multiple locations. Standard practice is to screen for risks only in those with personal or family history of specific disease. Genomic population heath screening has proven feasible and potentially scalable. The value of this intervention in terms of economic benefit has been scientifically modeled by several groups.

CONTENT

Eight recent cost-effectiveness modeling studies for high penetrance monogenic dominant diseases that used input parameters from 3 different countries are reviewed. Results and their uses in refining implementations are analyzed and the roles for laboratory medicine in facilitating success are discussed.

SUMMARY

The reviewed studies generally found evidence for cost-effectiveness of genomic population health screening in at least a subset of their base case screening scenario. Sensitivity analyses identified opportunities for improving the likelihood of cost-effectiveness. On the whole, the modeling results suggest genomic population health screening is likely to be cost-effective for high penetrance disorders in younger adults, especially with achievable reductions in test cost effected partially through combining tests for individual disorders into one screening procedure. Policies founded on the models studied should consider limitations of the modeling methods and the potential for impacts on equity and access in the design and implementation of genomic screening programs.

Combined population genomic screening for three high-risk conditions in Australia: a modelling study

Background

No previous health-economic evaluation has assessed the impact and cost-effectiveness of offering combined adult population genomic screening for mutliple high-risk conditions in a national public healthcare system.

Methods

This modeling study assessed the impact of offering combined genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome and familial hypercholesterolaemia to all young adults in Australia, compared with the current practice of clinical criteria-based testing for each condition separately. The intervention of genomic screening, assumed as an up-front single cost in the first annual model cycle, would detect pathogenic variants in seven high-risk genes. The simulated population was 18-40 year-olds (8,324,242 individuals), modelling per-sample test costs ranging AU$100-$1200 (base-case AU$200) from the year 2023 onwards with testing uptake of 50%. Interventions for identified high-risk variant carriers follow current Australian guidelines, modelling imperfect uptake and adherence. Outcome measures were morbidity and mortality due to cancer (breast, ovarian, colorectal and endometrial) and coronary heart disease (CHD) over a lifetime horizon, from healthcare-system and societal perspectives. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), discounted 5% annually (with 3% discounting in scenario analysis).

Findings

Over the population lifetime (to age 80 years), the model estimated that genomic screening per-100,000 individuals would lead to 747 QALYs gained by preventing 63 cancers, 31 CHD cases and 97 deaths. In the total model population, this would translate to 31,094 QALYs gained by preventing 2612 cancers, 542 non-fatal CHD events and 4047 total deaths. At AU$200 per-test, genomic screening would require an investment of AU$832 million for screening of 50% of the population. Our findings suggest that this intervention would be cost-effective from a healthcare-system perspective, yielding an ICER of AU$23,926 (∼£12,050/€14,110/US$15,345) per QALY gained over the status quo. In scenario analysis with 3% discounting, an ICER of AU$4758/QALY was obtained. Sensitivity analysis for the base case indicated that combined genomic screening would be cost-effective under 70% of simulations, cost-saving under 25% and not cost-effective under 5%. Threshold analysis showed that genomic screening would be cost-effective under the AU$50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold at per-test costs up to AU$325 (∼£164/€192/US$208).

Interpretation

Our findings suggest that offering combined genomic screening for high-risk conditions to young adults would be cost-effective in the Australian public healthcare system, at currently realistic testing costs. Other matters, including psychosocial impacts, ethical and societal issues, and implementation challenges, also need consideration.

Funding

Australian Government, Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, Genomics Health Futures Mission (APP2009024). National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (102604).

Economic evaluations of predictive genetic testing: A scoping review

Predictive genetic testing can provide information about whether or not someone will develop or is likely to develop a specific condition at a later stage in life. Economic evaluation can assess the value of money for such testing. Studies on the economic evaluation of predictive genetic testing have been carried out in a variety of settings, and this research aims to conduct a scoping review of findings from these studies. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases with combined search terms, from 2019 to 2022. Relevant studies from 2013 to 2019 in a previous systematic review were also included. The study followed the recommended stages for undertaking a scoping review. A total of 53 studies were included, including 33 studies from the previous review and 20 studies from the search of databases. A significant number of studies focused on the US, UK, and Australia (34%, 23%, and 11%). The most frequently included health conditions were cancer and cardiovascular diseases (68% and 19%). Over half of the studies compared predictive genetic testing with no genetic testing, and the majority of them concluded that at least some type of genetic testing was cost-effective compared to no testing (94%). Some studies stated that predictive genetic testing is becoming more cost-effective with the trend of lowering genetic testing costs. Studies on predictive genetic testing covered various health conditions, particularly cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Most studies indicated that predictive genetic testing is cost-effective compared to no testing.

Using a multistep approach with multidisciplinary team to increase the diagnosis rate of Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancer after universal screening: a single-center study in Japan

BACKGROUNDS

This study aimed to evaluate the changes in the rates of genetic counseling and genetic testing as well as the diagnosis rate of Lynch syndrome (LS)-associated colorectal cancer before and after multistep approach with multidisciplinary team in Japanese.

METHODS

In September 2016, we started universal screening for LS by mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry and prospectively collected the records. Following patient interviews, we started multistep approach with multidisciplinary team (MA) in January 2020. MA consists of six surgeons, one genetic counselor, one medical geneticist, and six pathologists. MA is set up to compensate for patients' lack of knowledge about genetic diseases and make case selection for elderly colorectal cancer patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR). MA is designed as a system that could be performed by a small number of medical genetic specialists. A total of 522 patients were included during the study duration, 323 and 199 patients in the pre-MA (P-MA) and MA groups, respectively.

RESULTS

The frequency of dMMR in all patients was 10.0%. The patient interview results indicated a significant lack of patient education regarding genetic diseases. The rates of genetic counseling and genetic testing was significantly higher in MA group than in P-MA group (genetic counseling: MA 34.6% vs. P-MA 7.7%, p = 0.04; genetic testing: MA 30.8% vs. P-MA 3.8%, p = 0.02). Moreover, the diagnosis rate of LS-associated colorectal cancer was significantly higher in MA group (2.5%) than in P-MA group (0.3%) (P = 0.03). In addition, MA could be performed without problems despite the small number of medical and human genetics specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

MA has achieved appropriate pickup of suspected hereditary colorectal cancer patients and complemented the lack of knowledge about genetic diseases. The introduction of MA increased LS-associated colorectal cancer after universal screening. MA is an appropriate LS screening protocol for Japanese patients who lag behind in medical and human genetics education.

Population Genomic Screening for Three Common Hereditary Conditions : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of screening the U.S. population for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 genomic conditions is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous genomic screening for Lynch syndrome (LS), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

DESIGN

Decision analytic Markov model.

DATA SOURCES

Published literature.

TARGET POPULATION

Separate age-based cohorts (ages 20 to 60 years at time of screening) of racially and ethnically representative U.S. adults.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

U.S. health care payer.

INTERVENTION

Population genomic screening using clinical sequencing with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes, cascade testing of first-degree relatives, and recommended preventive interventions for identified probands.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incident breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer cases; incident cardiovascular events; quality-adjusted survival; and costs.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Screening 100 000 unselected 30-year-olds resulted in 101 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 77 to 127) fewer overall cancer cases and 15 (95% UI, 4 to 28) fewer cardiovascular events and an increase of 495 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% UI, 401 to 757) at an incremental cost of $33.9 million (95% UI, $27.0 million to $41.1 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68 600 per QALY gained (95% UI, $41 800 to $88 900).

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-old cohorts was cost-effective in 99%, 88%, and 19% of probabilistic simulations, respectively, at a $100 000-per-QALY threshold. The test costs at which screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-olds reached the $100 000-per-QALY threshold were $413, $290, and $166, respectively. Variant prevalence and adherence to preventive interventions were also highly influential parameters.

LIMITATIONS

Population averages for model inputs, which were derived predominantly from European populations, vary across ancestries and health care environments.

CONCLUSION

Population genomic screening with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes associated with 3 CDC Tier 1 conditions is likely to be cost-effective in U.S. adults younger than 40 years if the testing cost is relatively low and probands have access to preventive interventions.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Human Genome Research Institute.

Frequency of actionable germline pathogenic variants identified through tumor next-generation sequencing in a gynecologic cancer cohort

BACKGROUND

Tumor next-generation sequencing can identify potential germline pathogenic variants associated with cancer susceptibility.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the frequency of tumor sequencing results that met European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommendations for further germline genetic testing, and the frequency of germline variants among a cohort with gynecologic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent tumor sequencing between September 2019 and February 2022 in a large healthcare system in New York City were retrospectively identified. Eligible patients with suspected germline pathogenic variants on tumor sequencing were identified based on ESMO guidelines. Logistic regression was used to explore variables associated with referral and completion of germline testing.

RESULTS

Of 358 patients with gynecologic cancers who underwent tumor sequencing, 81 (22.6%) had ≥1 suspected germline variant according to ESMO guidelines. Of the 81 patients with qualifying tumor sequencing results, 56 (69.1%) received germline testing: 41/46 (89.1%) eligible patients with ovarian cancer and 15/33 (45.5%) with endometrial cancer. In the endometrial cancer cohort, 11/33 (33.3%) eligible patients were not referred for germline testing and the majority of these patients had tumor variants in genes commonly known to cause hereditary cancer. Of the 56 patients who underwent germline testing, 40 (71.4%) had pathogenic germline variants. In multivariable analysis, race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white was associated with lower odds of germline testing referral and completion (OR=0.1, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.5 and OR=0.2, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.6, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Given the high rate of pathogenic germline variant detection and the importance of identifying such variants for both patients and their family, it is imperative that eligible patients undergo germline testing. Additional education for providers on multidisciplinary guidelines and development of clinical pathways to ensure germline testing of suspected pathogenic variants identified on tumor sequencing is warranted, especially in light of the racial/ethnic inequity observed.

A Focused Clinical Review of Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant condition that increases an individual's risk of a constellation of cancers. LS is defined when an individual has inherited pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes. Currently, most people with LS are undiagnosed. Early detection of LS is vital as those with LS can be enrolled in cancer reduction strategies through chemoprophylaxis, risk reducing surgery and cancer surveillance. However, these interventions are often invasive and require refinement. Furthermore, not all LS associated cancers are currently amenable to surveillance. Historically only those with a strong family history suggestive of LS were offered testing; this has proved far too restrictive. New criteria for testing have recently been introduced including the universal screening for LS in associated cancers. This has increased the number of people being diagnosed with LS but has also brought about unique challenges such as when to consent for germline testing and questions over how and who should carry out the consent. The results of germline testing for LS can be complicated and the diagnostic pathway is not always clear. Furthermore, by testing only those with cancer for LS we fail to identify these individuals before they develop potentially fatal pathology. This review will outline these challenges and explore solutions. Furthermore, we consider the potential future of LS care and the related treatments and interventions which are the current focus of research.

A review of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for germline variants in familial cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted germline testing is recommended for those with or at risk of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. The affordability of genetic sequencing has improved over the past decade, therefore the cost-effectiveness of testing for these cancers is worthy of reassessment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review economic evaluations on cost-effectiveness of germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A search of PubMed and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies on germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer, published between 1999 and May 2022. Synthesis of methodology, cost-effectiveness, and reporting (CHEERS checklist) was performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; in 2021-adjusted US$) for germline testing versus the standard care option in hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (HBOC) across target settings were as follows: (1) population-wide testing: 344-2.5 million/QALY; (2) women with high-risk: dominant = 78,118/QALY, 8,337-59,708/LYG; (3) existing breast or ovarian cancer: 3,012-72,566/QALY, 39,835/LYG; and (4) metastatic breast cancer: 158,630/QALY. Likewise, ICERs of germline testing for colorectal cancer across settings were: (1) population-wide testing: 132,200/QALY, 1.1 million/LYG; (2) people with high-risk: 32,322-76,750/QALY, dominant = 353/LYG; and (3) patients with existing colorectal cancer: dominant = 54,122/QALY, 98,790-6.3 million/LYG. Key areas of underreporting were the inclusion of a health economic analysis plan (100% of HBOC and colorectal studies), engagement of patients and stakeholders (95.4% of HBOC, 100% of colorectal studies) and measurement of outcomes (18.2% HBOC, 38.9% of colorectal studies).

CONCLUSION

Germline testing for HBOC was likely to be cost-effective across most settings, except when used as a co-dependent technology with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib in metastatic breast cancer. In colorectal cancer studies, testing was cost-effective in those with high-risk, but inconclusive in other settings. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the prevalence of tested variants, cost of testing, uptake, and benefits of prophylactic measures. Policy advice on germline testing should emphasize the importance of these factors in their recommendations.

From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening

Genomic medicine is expanding from a focus on diagnosis at the patient level to prevention at the population level given the ongoing under-ascertainment of high-risk and actionable genetic conditions using current strategies, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS) and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The availability of large-scale next-generation sequencing strategies and preventive options for these conditions makes it increasingly feasible to screen pre-symptomatic individuals through public health-based approaches, rather than restricting testing to high-risk groups. This raises anew, and with urgency, questions about the limits of screening as well as the moral authority and capacity to screen for genetic conditions at a population level. We aimed to answer some of these critical questions by using the WHO Wilson and Jungner criteria to guide a synthesis of current evidence on population genomic screening for HBOC, LS, and FH.

Comparison of Germline Genetic Testing Before and After a Medical Policy Covering Universal Testing Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

In 2020, some health insurance plans updated their medical policy to cover germline genetic testing for all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). Guidelines for universal tumor screening via microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry (MSI/IHC) for mismatch repair protein expression for patients with CRC have been in place since 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether uptake of MSI/IHC screening and germline genetic testing in patients with CRC has improved under these policies and to identify actionable findings and management implications for patients referred for germline genetic testing.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The multicenter, retrospective cohort study comprised 2 analyses of patients 18 years or older who were diagnosed with CRC between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020. The first analysis used an insurance claims data set to examine use of MSI/IHC screening and germline genetic testing for patients diagnosed with CRC between 2017 and 2020 and treated with systemic therapy. The second comprised patients with CRC who had germline genetic testing performed in 2020 that was billed under a universal testing policy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Patient demographic characteristics, clinical information, and use of MSI/IHC screening and germline genetic testing were analyzed.

RESULTS

For 9066 patients with newly diagnosed CRC (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.7] years; 4964 [54.8%] male), administrative claims data indicated that MSI/IHC was performed in 6645 eligible patients (73.3%) during the study period, with 2288 (25.2%) not receiving MSI/IHC despite being eligible for coverage. Analysis of a second cohort of 55 595 patients with CRC diagnosed in 2020 and covered by insurance found that only 1675 (3.0%) received germline genetic testing. In a subset of patients for whom germline genetic testing results were available, 1 in 6 patients had pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, with most of these patients having variants with established clinical actionability.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This nationwide cohort study found suboptimal rates of MSI/IHC screening and germline genetic testing uptake, resulting in clinically actionable genetic data being unavailable to patients diagnosed with CRC, despite universal eligibility. Effective strategies are required to address barriers to implementation of evidence-based universal testing policies that support precision treatment and optimal care management for patients with CRC.

A RE-AIM Framework Analysis of DNA-Based Population Screening: Using Implementation Science to Translate Research Into Practice in a Healthcare System

Introduction: DNA-based population screening has been proposed as a public health solution to identify individuals at risk for serious health conditions who otherwise may not present for medical care. The clinical utility and public health impact of DNA-based population screening is a subject of active investigation. Geisinger, an integrated healthcare delivery system, was one of the first healthcare systems to implement DNA screening programs (MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode) and clinical DNA screening pilot) that leverage exome data to identify individuals at risk for developing conditions with potential clinical actionability. Here, we demonstrate the use of an implementation science framework, RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance), to conduct a post-hoc evaluation and report outcomes from these two programs to inform the potential impact of DNA-based population screening. Methods: Reach and Effectiveness outcomes were determined from the MyCode research program, while Adoption and Implementation outcomes were measured using the clinical DNA screening pilot. Reach was defined as the number of patients who were offered and consented to participate in MyCode. Effectiveness of DNA screening was measured by reviewing MyCode program publications and synthesizing findings from themes. Adoption was measured by the total number of DNA screening tests ordered by clinicians at the clinical pilot sites. Implementation was assessed by interviewing a subset of clinical pilot clinicians about the deployment of and recommended adaptations to the pilot that could inform future program dissemination. Results: Reach: As of August 2020, 68% (215,078/316,612) of individuals approached to participate in the MyCode program consented. Effectiveness: Published evidence reported from MyCode demonstrates that DNA screening identifies at-risk individuals more comprehensively than clinical ascertainment based on phenotypes or personal/family history. Adoption: From July 2018 to June 2021, a total of 1,026 clinical DNA screening tests were ordered by 60 clinicians across the three pilot clinic sites. Implementation: Interviews with 14 clinicians practicing at the pilot clinic sites revealed motivation to provide patients with DNA screening results and yielded future implementation strategies. Conclusion: The RE-AIM framework offers a pragmatic solution to organize, analyze, and report outcomes across differently resourced and designed precision health programs that include genomic sequencing and return of clinically actionable genomic information.