ALERT: This system is being upgraded on Tuesday December 12. It will not be available
for use for several hours that day while the upgrade is in progress. Deposits to DukeSpace
will be disabled on Monday December 11, so no new items are to be added to the repository
while the upgrade is in progress. Everything should be back to normal by the end of
day, December 12.
Detecting Germline PTEN Mutations Among At-Risk Patients With Cancer: An Age- and Sex-Specific Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Abstract
<h4>Purpose</h4>Cowden syndrome (CS) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized
by benign and malignant tumors. One-quarter of patients who are diagnosed with CS
have pathogenic germline PTEN mutations, which increase the risk of the development
of breast, thyroid, uterine, renal, and other cancers. PTEN testing and regular, intensive
cancer surveillance allow for early detection and treatment of these cancers for mutation-positive
patients and their relatives. Individual CS-related features, however, occur commonly
in the general population, making it challenging for clinicians to identify CS-like
patients to offer PTEN testing.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We calculated the cost
per mutation detected and analyzed the cost-effectiveness of performing selected PTEN
testing among CS-like patients using a semi-quantitative score (the PTEN Cleveland
Clinic [CC] score) compared with existing diagnostic criteria. In our model, first-degree
relatives of the patients with detected PTEN mutations are offered PTEN testing. All
individuals with detected PTEN mutations are offered cancer surveillance.<h4>Results</h4>CC
score at a threshold of 15 (CC15) costs from $3,720 to $4,573 to detect one PTEN mutation,
which is the most inexpensive among the different strategies. At base-case, CC10 is
the most cost-effective strategy for female patients who are younger than 40 years,
and CC15 is the most cost-effective strategy for female patients who are between 40
and 60 years of age and male patients of all ages. In sensitivity analyses, CC15 is
robustly the most cost-effective strategy for probands who are younger than 60 years.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Use
of the CC score as a clinical risk calculator is a cost-effective prescreening method
to identify CS-like patients for PTEN germline testing.
Type
Journal articleSubject
HumansNeoplasms
Hamartoma Syndrome, Multiple
Population Surveillance
Germ-Line Mutation
Adult
Aged
Middle Aged
Cost-Benefit Analysis
United States
Female
Male
PTEN Phosphohydrolase
Early Detection of Cancer
Genetic Testing
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/22827Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1200/jco.2014.60.3456Publication Info
Ngeow, Joanne; Liu, Chang; Zhou, Ke; Frick, Kevin D; Matchar, David B; & Eng, Charis (2015). Detecting Germline PTEN Mutations Among At-Risk Patients With Cancer: An Age- and
Sex-Specific Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical
Oncology, 33(23). pp. 2537-2544. 10.1200/jco.2014.60.3456. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/22827.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
David Bruce Matchar
Professor of Medicine
My research relates to clinical practice improvement - from the development of clinical
policies to their implementation in real world clinical settings. Most recently my
major content focus has been cerebrovascular disease. Other major clinical areas in
which I work include the range of disabling neurological conditions, cardiovascular
disease, and cancer prevention. Notable features of my work are: (1) reliance on
analytic strategies such as meta-analysis, simulation, decision analy

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info