Screening for genetic susceptibility provides new opportunities for preventing common diseases, but whether such screening will result in substantial costs or savings is unclear. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) provide a theoretical framework for guiding clinical decisions about genetic tests. However, CEAs have been largely irrelevant in informing policy, clinical decisions, or patient demand concerning these genetic tests. Genetic tests have often proceeded directly from development and preliminary validation into clinical practice, with little understanding of their clinical, economic, and psychosocial implications. Using screening for BRCA mutations as an example, the accuracy of the tests and the effectiveness of many interventions among those who screen positive remain in question. CEAs do not seem to have played an important role in identifying whom to offer genetic testing nor how to manage those found to carry the gene marker. Credible CEAs are needed to provide guidance about screening decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Guttmacher AE, Collins FS. Genomic medicine—a primer . N Engl J Med. 2002;347: 1512-1520 .
2.
2. Kidd KK. Associations of disease with genetic markers: déjà vu all over again . Am J Genet. 1993;48: 71-73 .
3.
3. Lander E, Kruglyak L. Genetic dissection of complex traits: guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage results . Nat Genet. 1995;11: 241-247 .
4.
4. Wilfond BS, Nolan K. National policy development for the clinical application of genetic diagnostic technologies . JAMA. 1993;270: 2948-2954 .
5.
5. Goldie SJ, Levin AR. Genomics in medicine and public health: role of cost-effectiveness analysis . JAMA. 2001;286: 1637-1638 .
6.
6. Gollust SE, Hull SC, Wilfond BS. Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing . JAMA. 2002; 288: 1762-1767 .
7.
7. Myriad Genetics Inc. Myriad Genetics and LabCorp form exclusive predictive marketing alliance [press release]. 4 December 2001.
8.
8. Holtzman NA, Marteau TM. Will genetics revolutionize medicine? New Engl J Med. 2000;343: 141-144 .
9.
9. Tambor ES, Bernhardt BA, Chase GA, et al. Offering cystic fibro-sis carrier screening to an HMO population: factors associated with utilization . Am J Hum Genet. 1994;55: 626-637 .
10.
10. Hull SC, Presad K. Reading between the lines: direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic testing . Hastings Cent Rep. 2001; 31: 33-35 .
11.
11. Juengst ET. Caught in the middle again: professional ethical considerations in genetic testing for health risks . Genet Test. 1997/1998;1: 189-200 .
12.
12. Couch FJ, DeShano ML, Blackwood MA, et al. BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer . N Engl J Med. 1997;336: 1409-1415 .
13.
13. Easton DF, Ford D, Bishop DT. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium . Am J Hum Genet. 1995;56: 265-271 .
14.
14. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families . Am J Human Genet. 1998;62: 676-689 .
15.
15. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility . J Clin Oncol. 1996;14: 1730-1736 .
16.
16. National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research. Statement on use of DNA testing for presymptomatic identification of cancer risk . JAMA. 1994;271: 785 .
17.
17. American Society of Human Genetics. Statement of the American Society of Human Genetics on genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition . Am J Hum Genet. 1994;55: i-iv .
18.
18. Ford D, Easton DF, Peto J. Estimates of the gene frequency of BRCA1 and its contribution to breast and ovarian cancer incidence . Am J Hum Genet. 1995;57: 1457-1462 .
19.
19. Schrag D, Kuntz KM, Garber JE, et al. Decision analysis: effects of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy on life expectancy among women withBRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations . N Engl J Med. 1997;336: 1464-1471 .
20.
20. Pennisi VR, Capozzi A. Subcutaneous mastectomy data: a final statistical analysis of 1500 patients . Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1989;13: 15-21 .
21.
21. Zeigler LD, Kroll SS. Primary breast cancer after prophylactic mastectomy . Am J Clin Oncol. 1991;14: 451-454 .
22.
22. Fodor FH, Weston A, Bleiweiss IJ, et al. Frequency and carrier risk associated with common BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients . Am J Hum Genet. 1998;63: 45-51 .
23.
23. Thorlacius S, Struewing JP, Hartge P, et al. Population-based study of risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA2 mutation . Lancet. 1998;352: 1337-1339 .
24.
24. van Roosmalen MS, Verhoef LC, Stalmeier PFM, Hoogerbrugge N, van Daal WAJ. Decision analysis of prophylactic surgery or screening for BRCA1 mutation carriers: a more prominent role for oophorectomy . J Clin Oncol. 2002;20: 2092-2100 .
25.
25. Grann VR, Whang W, Jacobson JS, Heitjan DF, Antman KH, Neugut AI. Benefits and costs of screening Ashkenazi Jewish women for BRCA1 and BRCA2 . J Clin Oncol. 1999;17: 494-500 .
26.
26. Tonin P, Weber B, Offit K, et al. Frequency of recurrent BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer families . Nat Med. 1996;2: 1179-1183 .
27.
27. Hartmann LC, Schaid D, Sellers T, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (PM) in BRCA1/2 carriers [abstract] . Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2000;41: 222 .
28.
28. Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel B, van Putten WLJ, et al. Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation . N Engl J Med. 2001;345: 159-164 .
29.
29. Szabo CI, King MC. Inherited breast and ovarian cancer . Hum Mol Genet. 1995;4: 1811-1817 .
30.
30. Malone KE, Daling JR, Thompson JD, et al. BRCA1 mutations and breast cancer in the general population: analyses in women before age 35 years and in women before age 45 years with first-degree family history . JAMA. 1998;279: 922 .
31.
31. Anglian Breast Cancer Study Group. Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of breast cancer cases . Br J Cancer. 2000;83: 1301-1308 .
32.
32. Rosenthal TC, Puck SM. Screening for genetic risk of breast cancer . Am Fam Physician. 1999;59: 99 .
33.
33. Meijers-Heijboer H, Verhoog LC, Brekelmans CT, et al. Presymptomatic DNA testing and prophylactic surgery in families with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation . Lancet. 2000;355: 2015 .
34.
34. Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews . N Engl J Med. 1997;336: 1401-1408 .
35.
35. Dipple KM, McCabe ER. Phenotypes of patients with “simple” Mendelian disorders are complex traits: thresholds, modifiers, and systems dynamics . Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66: 1729-1735 .
36.
36. Levy PA, Shapira E. Heterogeneity and variability of inborn errors of metabolism . Am J Dis Child. 1993:147: 265-266 .
37.
37. Burke W, Austin MA. Genetic risk in context: calculating the penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations . J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94: 1185-1187 .
38.
38. Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer . N Engl J Med. 1999;340: 77-84 .
39.
39. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study . J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90: 1371-1388 .
40.
40. King MC, Wieand S, Hale K, et al. Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP-P1) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial . JAMA. 2001;286(18): 2251-2256 .
41.
41. Narod SA, Brunet JS, Ghadirian P, et al. Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study. Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group . Lancet. 2000;356: 1876-1881 .
42.
42. Cummings SR, Duong T, Kenyon E, et al. Serum estradiol level and risk of breast cancer during treatment with raloxifene . JAMA. 2002;287: 216-220 .
43.
43. Lippman ME, Krueger KA, Eckert S, et al. Indicators of lifetime estrogen exposure: effect on breast cancer incidence and interaction with raloxifene therapy in the multiple outcomes of raloxifene evaluation study participants . J Clin Oncol. 2001;19: 3111-3116 .
44.
44. Cauley JA, Norton L, Lippman ME, et al. Continued breast cancer risk reduction in postmenopausal women treated with raloxifene: 4-year results from the MORE trial—Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation . Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;65: 125-134 .
45.
45. Eisinger F, Geller G, Burke W, Holtzman NA. Cultural basis for differences between US and French clinical recommendations for women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer . Lancet. 1999;353: 919-920 .
46.
46. Ramsey S, Clarke L, Etzioni R, Higashi M, Berry K, Urban N. Cost-effectiveness of microsatellite instability screening as a method for detecting hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer . Ann Intern Med. 2001;135: 577-588 .
47.
47. van der Riet AAPM, van Hout BA, Rutten FFH. Cost effective-ness of DNA diagnosis for four monogenic diseases . J Med Genet. 1997;34: 741-745 .
48.
48. Pronk NP, Goodman MJ, O'Connor PJ, et al. Relationship between modifiable health risks and short-term health care charges . JAMA. 1999;282: 2235-2239 .
49.
49. Kuerer HM, Hwang ES, Anthony JP, et al. Current national health insurance coverage policies for breast and ovarian cancer prophylactic surgery . Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7: 325-332 .
50.
50. Report of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Alexandria (VA): International Medical Publishing ; 1996.
51.
51. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force . Ann Intern Med. 2002;137: 347-360 .
52.
52. Screening for prostate cancer: a recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force . Ann Intern Med. 2002;137: I48 .
53.
53. Harris R, Lohr KN. Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force . Ann Intern Med. 2002;137: 917-929 .
