Evidence mapPaperPMID 39246007Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

Gynaecological cancer surveillance for women with Lynch syndrome: systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation.

Tristan M Snowsill, Helen Coelho, Nia G Morrish, Simon Briscoe, Kate Boddy, Tracy Smith, Emma J Crosbie, Neil Aj Ryan, Fiona Lalloo, Claire T Hulme

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tristan M SnowsillHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7406-2819
Helen CoelhoPeninsula Technology Assessment Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4799-4300
Nia G MorrishHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7206-4957
Simon BriscoeExeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6982-4521
Kate BoddyNIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9135-5488
Tracy SmithLynch Syndrome, Exeter, UK.
Emma J CrosbieDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0284-8630
Neil Aj RyanThe Academic Women's Health Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3117-3257
Fiona LallooManchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0612-8377
Claire T HulmeHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2077-0419

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome. Methods: We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing. Results: We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for Limitations: Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisCost-Benefit AnalysisGenital Neoplasms, FemaleQuality-Adjusted Life YearsColonoscopyFemaleHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCANCER SURVEILLANCECOST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISCOST-UTILITY ANALYSISDISCRETE EVENT SIMULATIONECONOMIC EVALUATIONENDOMETRIAL CANCERHEREDITARY NON-POLYPOSIS COLORECTAL CANCERLYNCH SYNDROMEOVARIAN CANCERSYSTEMATIC REVIEWWHOLE DISEASE MODEL

Identifiers

PMID39246007
PMCPMC11403379

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.