Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 October 9.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3793254

Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Primary Genetic Screening for Lynch Syndrome in the General Population


In current clinical practice, genetic testing to detect Lynch syndrome mutations ideally begins with diagnostic testing of an individual affected with cancer before offering predictive testing to at-risk relatives. An alternative strategy that warrants exploration involves screening unaffected individuals via demographic and family histories, and offering genetic testing to those individuals whose risks for carrying a mutation exceed a selected threshold. Whether this approach would improve health outcomes in a manner that is cost-effective relative to current standards of care has yet to be demonstrated. To do so, we developed a simulation framework that integrated models of colorectal and endometrial cancers with a 5-generation family history model to predict health and economic outcomes of 20 primary screening strategies (at a wide range of compliance levels) aimed at detecting individuals with mismatch repair gene mutations and their at-risk relatives. These strategies were characterized by (i) different screening ages for starting risk assessment and (ii) different risk thresholds above which to implement genetic testing. For each strategy, 100,000 simulated individuals, representative of the U.S. population, were followed from the age of 20, and the outcomes were compared with current practice. Findings indicated that risk assessment starting at ages 25, 30, or 35, followed by genetic testing of those with mutation risks exceeding 5%, reduced colorectal and endometrial cancer incidence in mutation carriers by approximately 12.4% and 8.8%, respectively. For a population of 100,000 individuals containing 392 mutation carriers, this strategy increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) by approximately 135 with an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of screening for mismatch repair gene mutations is comparable to that of accepted cancer screening activities in the general population such as colorectal cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and breast cancer screening. These results suggest that primary screening of individuals for mismatch repair gene mutations, starting with risk assessment between the ages of 25 and 35, followed by genetic testing of those whose risk exceeds 5%, is a strategy that could improve health outcomes in a cost-effective manner relative to current practice.


It is estimated that 2% to 4% of all diagnosed colorectal cancers (1) and 2% to 5% of all diagnosed endometrial cancers (2) are due to Lynch syndrome, an autosomal, dominantly inherited predisposition to cancer resulting from germline mutations in the genes that regulate DNA mismatch repair. As the most common heritable cause of colorectal cancer, mismatch repair mutations confer a lifetime colorectal cancer risk of 35% to 80%, and a lifetime endometrial cancer risk of 34% to 71% (1, 3). The syndrome is further characterized by synchronous or metachronous malignancies at sites including the ovaries, hepatobiliary tract, urinary tract, and others. It is highly penetrant, and the associated cancers have high rates of recurrence.

Despite a mutation carrier prevalence in the general U.S. population estimated to be in excess of 1 in 440 (4), the condition remains clinically underrecognized (5, 6). Studies have indicated, however, that when mismatch repair mutation carriers are identified, enhanced surveillance by colonoscopy, and prophylaxis by total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAHBSO) mitigate the morbidity and mortality associated with the syndrome (79).

Genetic tests to detect mutations in genes that cause Lynch syndrome (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) are clinically available. In the broad context of genetically heritable cancers, genetic testing and counseling prior to manifestation of disease have been advocated when an individual has a personal or family history suggestive of a cancer susceptibility condition, and when an interpretable genetic test can aid in the diagnosis or management of the individual or at-risk family members (10). Genetic screening guided by risk assessment in unaffected women for the breast cancer susceptibility mutations BRCA1/2, for example, has been a successful implementation of this strategy (1113). Although genetic testing in breast cancer is most informative when it begins with an affected family member, the imperfect access to information about these affected family members who may be unavailable, uninsured, or deceased leads to the common clinical scenario of testing unaffected women on the basis of their pretest probabilities of carrying a mutation. This practice is far less common for Lynch syndrome, even though the same limitations of family member availability apply. Current national consensus guidelines recommend that a molecular diagnostic work-up for Lynch syndrome begins at the time that individuals present with malignancies that are clinically suspicious (1416), rather than prior to cancer diagnosis. Individuals who are at risk for Lynch syndrome on the basis of suspicious family histories are currently referred for genetics consultation, although recognition and uptake are low. Therefore, it is worthwhile to evaluate an alternative strategy involving primary screening for mismatch repair mutations by risk assessment in unaffected individuals—using, for example, published risk calculators (4, 17)—followed by genetic testing in those whose risk is high. This approach stands to identify individuals and families at risk for Lynch syndrome when prophylaxis, surveillance, and early detection might be most effective.

An appropriate implementation of primary screening for mismatch repair mutations in individuals without a history of cancer would involve two steps: (i) assessment of an individual’s risk of carrying a mutation based on personal demographics and family history, and (ii) genetic testing for individuals whose risks exceed a certain threshold.

The objective of the present study was to identify (i) whether primary screening for Lynch syndrome leads to improved health outcomes, (ii) whether such a strategy is cost-effective, (iii) an appropriate age to initiate screening by risk assessment, and (iv) an optimal risk threshold at which to implement genetic testing.

Materials and Methods

The model

The Archimedes Model is a large-scale simulation model that has been described in the literature (18, 19). The core of the Archimedes Model is a set of algebraic and differential equations that represent physiology, diseases, and health care systems. Currently, the Archimedes Model includes diabetes, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, stroke, hypertension, obesity, and cancers of the breast, lung, colon, and endometrium. The cancer models were developed in collaboration with the American Cancer Society and make use of large-scale databases, including Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER; 20) and the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI; 21). The Archimedes Model has been validated against studies such as the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort, and the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on colorectal cancer screening (22). Details are available in the Appendix in the Supplementary Data, and similar methods of validating the model have been published in the literature (23).

Lynch syndrome in the model includes the natural histories of colorectal and endometrial cancer associated with mismatch repair gene mutations, and captures the interactions of individuals and their first-degree relatives with the health care system via screening, diagnosis, surveillance, and treatment. For colorectal cancer, data were synthesized from clinical trials, colonoscopy studies, retrospective analyses, population surveys, and national databases (Table 1 and the Appendix in the Supplementary Data), capturing (i) early onset, (ii) accelerated adenoma–carcinoma sequence, (iii) higher probability of colorectal tumor location in the proximal colon, and (iv) high risk of metachronous malignancy for individuals with Lynch syndrome relative to individuals with sporadic colorectal cancer. For endometrial cancer, incidence was derived from a meta-analysis of the literature, and survival was found to be similar to that for sporadic endometrial cancer (Table 1 and the Appendix in the Supplementary Data).

Table 1
Key parameters, assumptions, modeling approaches, and sources (full list may be found in the Appendix in the Supplementary Data)

The model also includes the following tests, interventions, and treatments:

  1. Mutation testing: genetic sequencing and rearrangement including 1-, 3-, and 4-gene panels; single-site testing (in relatives of known carriers); and immunohistochemistry (IHC) and microsatellite instability (MSI) tumor testing (the latter not used to guide genetic testing),
  2. Cancer surveillance/screening: colonoscopy, endometrial biopsy, and transvaginal ultrasound,
  3. Prophylactic procedures: TAHBSO, polypectomy,
  4. Cancer treatment: total and segmental colectomy, TAHBSO, aggregated pharmacologic and radiation therapy.

Population generation

Using data from the literature and publicly available data sets (Table 1 and the Appendix in the Supplementary Data), we created a virtual population of 100,000 individuals representative of the U.S. population. We constructed natural history models of sporadic and Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal and endometrial cancers, and generated subpopulations of noncarriers and carriers of mutations of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 genes (1).

We also created a family history model to construct 5-generation family pedigrees (including first- and second-degree relatives) of each individual using methods similar to those published elsewhere (24). These methods are described in detail in Section 6 of the Appendix. Briefly, pedigree structures representative of U.S. families were generated, and mutations and cancers were distributed among these pedigrees at appropriate prevalence and incidence rates. Although colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer were the only Lynch syndrome cancers tracked in probands, incidence of all Lynch syndrome-associated cancers (25) was accounted for in family pedigrees to calculate individuals’ risks for carrying a mutation using the PREMM126 risk prediction model (26), a recent update of the PREMM12 model (ref. 17; Available at: To address the sparsity of appropriate family history data for unaffected mutation carriers without encountering prevalence bias by drawing this information from Lynch syndrome registries, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations of families with Lynch syndrome to create surrogate family history parameters required as inputs by the PREMM126 model, adapting established techniques (24). The family history model of cancer was then validated against data on family histories of colorectal cancer in the general population (27) and against data in a Lynch syndrome registry (28).


The model took into account direct medical costs associated with tests and interventions. These costs were primarily based on Medicare reimbursement rates (Table 1). All costs were adjusted to 2009 values using the medical care component of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (29).

Parameters for calculating quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) are shown in Table 1 and the Appendix. A societal perspective was used, with costs, benefits, and life-years discounted 3%, and with adherence to other recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (30). We defined the average cost-effectiveness ratio as cost per QALY saved of a given screening strategy relative to current practice, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as cost per QALY saved of a given strategy relative to the nearest strategy on the efficient frontier (Fig. 1A). We considered a strategy to be “cost-effective” if the cost per QALY was below the often-quoted benchmark of $50,000 per QALY (31), although others have argued for higher thresholds (32).

Figure 1
Cost-effectiveness of primary screening strategies for mismatch repair mutations in a simulated population of 100,000 individuals, representative of the general U.S. population. Risk thresholds representing the probability of carrying a mismatch repair ...

Study design

We conducted a virtual clinical trial in which 100,000 simulated individuals, representative of the general U.S. population, were tracked from the age of 20, and were exposed to each of 20 primary screening strategies (experimental arms). These strategies (Tables 2 and and3),3), involved risk assessment at different ages (20, 25, 30, 35, or 40) using PREMM126, followed by 4-gene mutation testing of those individuals whose risks for carrying a mutation exceeded a given threshold (0%, 2.5%, 5.0%, or 10%). A threshold of 0% was considered equivalent to universal screening in which all individuals received genetic testing without pre-ceding risk assessment. The PREMM126 model was chosen for risk assessment because it is usable for individuals who have not necessarily developed malignancies (20% of the development cohort were unaffected by cancer). Furthermore, it was built from a racially diverse group of individuals referred for genetic testing and externally validated against an independent cohort of individuals with colorectal cancer recruited through the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR). In clinical practice, however, clinicians may use other means to quantify risk for individuals without malignancy such as MMRpro (available at

Table 2
Health outcomes among probands exposed to primary genetic screening strategies relative to current practice patterns
Table 3
Health and economic outcomes of 100,000 simulated individuals in the general population plus first-degree relatives of mutation carriers exposed to primary genetic screening strategies

In the primary screening groups, individuals with negative genetic test results were presumed not to carry a mutation and received future screening for sporadic colorectal cancer according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Practice Guidelines (33). Individuals with positive genetic test results were thereafter screened annually with colonoscopy and with endometrial biopsy and transvaginal ultrasound, or were given prophylactic TAHBSO as described in Table 12 of the Appendix. Individuals who were not genetically tested (i.e., failure to exceed the risk threshold for genetic testing) received future screening for sporadic colorectal cancer according to NCCN Practice Guidelines. However, as these simulated individuals aged, their family histories of cancer in first- and second-degree relatives evolved naturally. Individuals in the simulation became aware of these updates in cancer diagnoses among relatives at rates described in the literature and sought physician reassessment of their own updated risks (with PREMM126) as appropriate (34, 35).

In the current practice group (control arm), cloned cohorts were given current care in which testing was performed in individuals with appropriate clinical risk factors after a malignancy was detected (33). Individuals with colorectal or endometrial cancer meeting certain clinical criteria (colorectal or endometrial cancer at age <50, or ≥2 Lynch syndrome-associated cancers in the same proband, or a proband with ≥2 first- or second-degree relatives with Lynch syndrome-associated cancers) were offered either tumor testing by IHC, followed—when positive—by single-gene testing, or direct genetic testing for MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6, followed optionally by PMS2, at utilization rates reflective of current practice (Fig. 19 in the Appendix and Grover et al. (6)). When genetic testing demonstrated the presence of a mismatch repair mutation in the proband, testing was extended to at-risk relatives.

In both the primary screening groups and the current practice group, individuals testing positive at the time of a malignancy were offered appropriate surgical and/or medical intervention and ongoing surveillance. In addition, single-site (mutation-specific) testing was performed on first-degree relatives of known mutation carriers at reported compliances (Table 1).

Screening strategies were compared with control groups in three ways. First, as a policy study, screening strategies were compared with current practice patterns to demonstrate the care gap between current health care and the gains that stand to be achieved with wide adoption of the new strategy (Tables 2 and and3).3). This policy-approach indicates the upper limit of the total disease burden that the new intervention could alleviate if it were to be widely adopted, and the cost-effectiveness, if any, associated with this approach. Second, to compare wide adoption of screening to wide adoption of current policy (i.e., the assumption that 100% of physicians adhere to current guidelines for testing at-risk probands with tumors), a sensitivity analysis was conducted as shown in Figure 2. Third, to compare the screening strategy under a broad range of adoption rates (0%, 33%, 67%, 100%) to current rates of physician adoption of testing at-risk probands with tumors, we calculated health outcomes for a subset of strategies from Tables 2 and and33 (strategies 12–14) that were found to offer a balanced combination of health improvement and cost-effectiveness (Table 4).

Figure 2
One-way sensitivity analysis of Strategy 13 (Tables 24). Sensitivity of the average cost-effectiveness ratio as each parameter varies within the specified range.
Table 4
Health and economic outcomes of several primary genetic screening strategies with varying levels of adoption relative to current practice patterns

Parameters and assumptions

Parameters, base case values, and assumptions used to inform the model were drawn from the literature and publicly available data sets to the greatest extent possible (Table 1 in the manuscript and Table 12 in the Appendix). When data were lacking, these values were estimated by consensus among the study authors with clinical expertise in Lynch syndrome, and appropriate sensitivity analyses were performed. The model validated well against studies with mutation carriers describing (i) incidence of adenomas (36), (ii) effects of colonoscopic surveillance on incidence of colorectal cancer (37), and (iii) effects of hysterectomy on incidence of endometrial cancer (9).


Table 2 summarizes the health outcomes and life-years gained for probands exposed to the various screening strategies. Table 3 summarizes health outcomes and cost-effectiveness for probands and first-degree relatives exposed to each screening strategy.

Universal primary genetic screening (0% pretest probability), starting at age 20 (Strategy 1), reduced colorectal and endometrial cancer incidence in mutation carriers relative to current practice by 43.9% and 39.6%, respectively. In the simulated population of 100,000 individuals, this strategy identified 336 mutation carriers in probands (approximately 86% of the total number of probands with mutations). Single-site testing was offered to 1,351 first-degree relatives of these probands, 885 of whom complied with testing, and 428 of whom were found to be mutation carriers. This strategy resulted in the identification of 712 additional mutation carriers relative to the current practice arm. Total treatment costs of colorectal and endometrial cancer for mutation carriers were reduced by 39%, and absolute life expectancy per mutation carrier increased by 4.07 years. The cost savings of cancer treatment were partially offset by the costs of surveillance, prophylactic procedures, and notably by the costs of genetic testing, as one hundred forty 4-gene tests were needed to identify one additional mutation carrier. This screening strategy resulted in a gain of 933 QALYs with an additional cost of $374 million compared with current practice patterns, at an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $401,019 per QALY gained.

As the risk threshold for genetic testing was increased, fewer people received primary genetic screening. For a 5% risk threshold in which screening started at age 30, as in Strategy 13 (Table 3), 1,475 probands were offered 4-gene panels, resulting in 199 additional mutation carriers identified (7.41 tests per identified mutation carrier), and a gain of 135 QALYs at an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,229 per QALY gained. At a 10% threshold for testing initiated at age 30, as in Strategy 18, 259 people were offered 4-gene panels, resulting in the identification of 101 additional mutation carriers (2.56 tests per identified mutation carrier), a gain of 63 QALYs, at an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $8,994 per QALY gained.

Corresponding to the values in Table 3, Figure 1A plots QALYs gained versus increase in cost for each primary screening strategy. QALYs gained and cost depended strongly on risk thresholds, and weakly on initial screening age. The average cost-effectiveness ratio as a function of initial screening age is shown in Figure 1B. For risk thresholds of 2.5% and 5.0%, screening started at age 35 offered the lowest average cost-effectiveness ratios, although the incremental magnitudes of these optima relative to other ages were small.

Figure 2 shows the influence of several parameters in a one way sensitivity analysis of Strategy 13. This strategy was chosen for sensitivity analysis because it was in the center of a cluster of three strategies with similar average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios under $50,000 per QALY (1214). Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to discount rate and the prevalence of Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancer, and incrementally less sensitive to compliance of first-degree relatives with testing, physician adherence to current guidelines in the current practice group, and to the cost of the 4-gene panel.

Inspecting this same cluster of strategies (1214), Table 4 indicates the degree to which the overall impact of genetic screening on Lynch syndrome cancer outcomes depends on the combined adoption of this screening approach by physicians and patients. In strategy 13, for instance, if the rate of physician–patient adoption of the screening strategy was reduced from 100% to 67% and to 33%, then the absolute life-years saved per carrier exposed to screening were reduced from 1.07 to 0.72 and to 0.35, respectively. Despite reduction in both life-years saved and in cost incurred with imperfect adoption levels, the cost-effectiveness ratios of these strategies in Table 4 were the same as for those strategies in Table 3 in which full adoption was modeled.


By examining primary genetic screening to detect mismatch repair mutation carriers prior to malignancy, and by capturing the important familial factors in risk assessment and in posttest screening of first-degree relatives of mutation-carrying probands, this study enabled the identification of strategies to cost-effectively reduce the burden of Lynch syndrome. This primary screening approach is distinct from current guidelines which recommend clinically informed genetic testing in individuals who have already developed malignancies.

From a clinical perspective, universal screening (0% risk threshold) starting at age 20 reduced the incidence of colorectal and endometrial cancer in mutation carriers compared with current practice (control) the greatest (43.9% and 39.6% respectively), and substantially increased the average life-years per mutation carrier (4.07 years gained), as shown in Table 2. As the risk threshold for genetic testing was increased, and fewer people qualified for testing (as in Strategy 20), the reductions in colorectal and endometrial cancer incidence were minimized (5.3% and 3.6%, respectively), as were life-years gained per mutation carrier (0.41 years).

From a cost-effectiveness perspective, although universal screening offered the greatest benefit in clinical outcomes, it did so at the least attractive cost-effectiveness ratios. Furthermore, universal screening required the largest number of tests—over 140—to identify one additional mutation carrier. However, as the risk threshold for genetic testing was set to 5.0% and 10%, the cost-effectiveness values fell below the benchmark of $50,000 per QALY, and the number of tests needed to identify one additional mutation carrier dropped to 7–8, and 2–3, respectively. Although the health outcomes in Table 2 were sensitive to both screening age and risk of carrying a mutation, sensitivity of cost-effectiveness was dominated by the latter (Table 3 and Figs. 1A and B).

Between the extremes of universal testing and a strategy involving a high threshold for testing were strategies, such as 12, which achieved reductions in colorectal and endometrial cancer incidence of 13.5% and 9.0% respectively, at an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,571 per QALY and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44,537 per QALY. As the age at which to start screening increased from 25 to 35 (e.g., strategies 12, 14), screening had less of an effect on the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence (13.5% vs. 12.2%), and on the reduction of endometrial cancer incidence (9.0% vs. 8.1%), but improved cost-effectiveness ($44,537 per QALY vs. $40,645 per QALY). On the basis of the values in Table 3, several effective primary genetic screening strategies exist for start ages of 25 to 35, with a risk threshold of 5%. Cost per QALY of strategies 12 and 14, for example, are below the cost-effectiveness benchmark and are comparable to values of other accepted prevention activities described by Maciosek et al. (38) including colorectal cancer screening (<$14,000 per QALY), cervical cancer screening ($14,000–$35,000 per QALY), and breast cancer screening ($35,000–$165,000 per QALY). Furthermore, relative to the other screening strategies studied, strategies 12 and 14 concomitantly achieved modest gains in absolute life-years and modest reductions in the incidence of colorectal and endometrial cancer.

As suggested in Table 4, the absolute benefits in health outcomes in strategies 12 to 14 depended on the projected adoption rates of the screening strategies. However, with the exception of slight variation due to random sampling, the cost-effectiveness ratio itself did not vary as a function of adoption rate, a finding which is consistent with similar observations described elsewhere (39). Of note is that adoption of the proposed screening strategy is a dual function of individuals visiting with their physicians and physicians implementing the strategy. Although younger patients may be less likely to visit with their physicians, the modeled screening strategies indicate a start-age and not a single age for risk assessment. Because the simulated patients may return to their physicians for physical exams and for risk reassessments as their first- and second-degree relatives age and develop disease over time, a 25-year-old, for example, who does not comply with visiting his or her physician is not an opportunity lost, but merely an opportunity delayed. Ultimately, as adoption improves over time, exemplified by the successful and widespread adoption of history- and genetic-based screening strategies associated with BRCA1/2, benefits in health outcomes will rise accordingly.

This analysis was based on a number of important but generally conservative assumptions. First, although we assumed that single-site testing was only offered to first-degree relatives of probands, in clinical practice efforts are commonly made to offer single-site tests to second-degree relatives as well. For example, in the study by Hampel, five to six relatives were tested per proband on the basis of cascade testing of family members beyond first-degree relation (40). An estimate of the benefit of extending testing to second-degree relatives in whom mutation prevalence of 25% was assumed, resulted for strategy 13 in an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $16,564 per QALY if six second-degree relatives were tested. Second, the current study used an annual discount rate of 3% for both cost and QALYs in the base case calculation. It is possible that this approach is conservative over lifetime horizons in which testing costs are incurred upfront whereas treatment and QALY savings at substantial discounts are realized later. Third, we used conservative estimates related to diagnostic testing. We set the analytic sensitivity of genetic tests at 90% for MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6, and 62% for PMS2. These values are below subjective levels cited in the literature (e.g., 99.5%; 1), but allowed us to account for effects of such factors as genetic variants of uncertain significance known to occur in the genes modeled. Ongoing advances in testing techniques as well as emerging tests for BRAF and TAC/ STD1 will likely lead to higher sensitivities. We also estimated that in current practice, when taking the entire U.S. population into account, approximately 30% of individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer have access to MSI and IHC testing. Although nearly all individuals diagnosed with and treated for colorectal cancer in academic and institutional clinical settings have access to these testing modalities, most individuals are diagnosed and treated at community hospitals where protocols for routine processing of tumors for MSI and IHC are not yet widely implemented. We acknowledge that this may change over time, with MSI increasingly recognized as a prognostic factor for survival and as a predictive factor for sensitivity to specific chemotherapies. Fourth, the costs of colorectal cancer treatment were based on SEER Medicare data from 1998 to 2003 (20), rather than the much higher costs of recently available molecular-targeting agents. This approach was taken to minimize the favorable bias on outcomes that the uniform use of these high-cost agents in the control group would introduce. Had updated estimates of the costs of colorectal cancer treatment been implemented, the cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening would have been further enhanced.

In summary, primary genetic screening for mutations in mismatch repair genes, with a screening start age between 25 and 35, and a risk threshold of 5%, leads to improvements in health outcomes among carriers and families with these mutations and is cost-effective relative to the common criterion of $50,000 per QALY. In the simulation, approximately 1% of the general population had risk in excess of the aforementioned 5% threshold, emphasizing the scope of the public health issue that could be addressed by such a screening strategy. This finding supports the concept that genetic screening of unaffected at-risk individuals, when conducted in association with appropriate risk assessment, and when followed by surveillance for colorectal and endometrial cancer would cost-effectively improve health outcomes. Furthermore, it offers an evidence-based justification for a shift in the clinical approach to Lynch syndrome from one that is reactive to one that is proactive. By providing clinicians with a simple and easily employed means of determining an individual’s future risk of developing Lynch syndrome, the primary care practitioner may now participate with the oncologic and surgical specialists in the fundamental roles of prevention, surveillance, and management of patients with Lynch syndrome mutations.

Supplementary Material



We thank Kathleen Thompson, Andrea Allen, David Eddy, and Mary Velthuizen for their contributions.

Grant Support

This study was carried out by Archimedes, Inc., and its academic collaborators under grant support from Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.


Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Prevention Research Online (

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

Tuan Dinh, Benjamin Rosner, and James Atwood are full time employees of Archimedes, Inc. Other authors disclose potential conflicts of interest: C. Richard Boland (Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.), Sapna Syngal (Archimedes, Marina Biotech, Interquest), Stephen B. Gruber (Archimedes, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.), and Randall Burt (Archimedes, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc., Caris Inc.).


1. Palomaki GE, McClain MR, Melillo S, Hampel HL, Thibodeau SN. EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Genet Med. 2009;11:42–65. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Meyer LA, Broaddus RR, Lu KH. Endometrial cancer and Lynch syndrome: clinical and pathologic considerations. Cancer Control. 2009;16:14–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3. Vasen HF, Wijnen JT, Menko FH, Kleibeuker JH, Taal BG, Griffioen G, et al. Cancer risk in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer diagnosed by mutation analysis. Gastroenterology. 1996;110:1020–7. [PubMed]
4. Chen S, Wang W, Lee S, Nafa K, Lee J, Romans K, et al. Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2006;296:1479–87. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Singh H, Schiesser R, Anand G, Richardson PA, El-Serag HB. Under-diagnosis of Lynch syndrome involves more than family history criteria. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:523–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Grover S, Stoffel EM, Bussone L, Tschoegl E, Syngal S. Physician assessment of family cancer history and referral for genetic evaluation in colorectal cancer patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:813–9. [PubMed]
7. Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Aarnio M, Mecklin JP, Jarvinen HJ. Surveillance improves survival of colorectal cancer in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Cancer Detect Prev. 2000;24:137–42. [PubMed]
8. Jarvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H, Aktan-Collan K, Aaltonen LA, Peltomaki P, et al. Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2000;118:829–34. [PubMed]
9. Schmeler KM, Lynch HT, Chen LM, Munsell MF, Soliman PT, Clark MB, et al. Prophylactic surgery to reduce the risk of gynecologic cancers in the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:261–9. [PubMed]
10. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2397–406. [PubMed]
11. Nelson HD, Huffman LH, Fu R, Harris EL. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:362–79. [PubMed]
12. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. [Accessed August 10, 2010];Genetic/Familial High Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian Cancer. 2010 Available from:
13. Robson ME, Storm CD, Weitzel J, Wollins DS, Offit K. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:893–901. [PubMed]
14. Vasen HF, Moslein G, Alonso A, Bernstein I, Bertario L, Blanco I, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer) J Med Genet. 2007;44:353–62. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med. 2009;11:35–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Lynch PM. Standards of care in diagnosis and testing for hereditary colon cancer. Fam Cancer. 2008;7:65–72. [PubMed]
17. Balmana J, Stockwell DH, Steyerberg EW, Stoffel EM, Deffenbaugh AM, Reid JE, et al. Prediction of MLH1 and MSH2 mutations in Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2006;296:1469–78. [PubMed]
18. Schlessinger L, Eddy DM. Archimedes: a new model for simulating health care systems—the mathematical formulation. J Biomed Inform. 2002;35:37–50. [PubMed]
19. Kahn R, Alperin P, Eddy D, Borch-Johnsen K, Buse J, Feigelman J, et al. Age at initiation and frequency of screening to detect type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet. 2010;375:1365–74. [PubMed]
20. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program Populations (1969–2006) NCI, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch; Feb, 2009. released. Available from:
21. Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. 2007 Available from:
22. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garewal H, Chejfec G. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:162–8. [PubMed]
23. Eddy DM, Schlessinger L. Validation of the archimedes diabetes model. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:3102–10. [PubMed]
24. Bajdik CD, Raboud JM, Schechter MT, McGillivray BC, Gallagher RP. A computer model to simulate family history of breast/ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Math Biosci. 2001;171:99–111. [PubMed]
25. Watson P, Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Bernstein I, Aarnio M, Jarvinen HJ, et al. The risk of extra-colonic, extra-endometrial cancer in the Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:444–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Kastrinos F, Steyerberg EW, Mercado R, Balmaña J, Holter S, Gallinger S, et al. The PREMM 1,2,6 model predicts risk of MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 germline mutations based on cancer history. Gastroenterology. 2010 Epub ahead of print. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Ramsey SD, Yoon P, Moonesinghe R, Khoury MJ. Population-based study of the prevalence of family history of cancer: implications for cancer screening and prevention. Genet Med. 2006;8:571–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Clinical description of the Lynch syndrome [hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)] [Accessed December 28 2009];Familial Cancer. 2005 4:219–25. [PubMed]
29. Gross CP, McAvay GJ, Krumholz HM, Paltiel AD, Bhasin D, Tinetti ME. The effect of age and chronic illness on life expectancy after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer: implications for screening. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:646–53. [PubMed]
30. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1339–41. [PubMed]
31. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:332–42. [PubMed]
32. Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT, Jr, Leslie D, Roberts MS. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care. 2008;46:349–56. [PubMed]
33. Burt RW, Barthel JS, Dunn KB, David DS, Drelichman E, Ford JM, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8:8–61. [PubMed]
34. Murff HJ, Spigel DR, Syngal S. Does this patient have a family history of cancer? An evidence-based analysis of the accuracy of family cancer history. JAMA. 2004;292:1480–9. [PubMed]
35. Mitchell RJ, Brewster D, Campbell H, Porteous ME, Wyllie AH, Bird CC, et al. Accuracy of reporting of family history of colorectal cancer. Gut. 2004;53:291–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Burn J, Bishop DT, Mecklin JP, Macrae F, Moslein G, Olschwang S, et al. Effect of aspirin or resistant starch on colorectal neoplasia in the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2567–78. [PubMed]
37. de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Nagengast FM, Griffioen G, Menko FH, Taal BG, Kleibeuker JH, et al. Surveillance for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: a long-term study on 114 families. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:1588–94. [PubMed]
38. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31:52–61. [PubMed]
39. Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi JM. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:573–84. [PubMed]
40. Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, Arnold M, Khanduja K, Kuebler P, et al. Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1851–60. [PubMed]
41. Mecklin JP, Aarnio M, Laara E, Kairaluoma MV, Pylvanainen K, Peltomaki P, et al. Development of colorectal tumors in colonoscopic surveillance in Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:1093–8. [PubMed]
42. Liljegren A, Barker G, Elliott F, Bertario L, Bisgaard ML, Eccles D, et al. Prevalence of adenomas and hyperplastic polyps in mismatch repair mutation carriers among CAPP2 participants: report by the colorectal adenoma/carcinoma prevention programme 2. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3434–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
43. Lindgren G, Liljegren A, Jaramillo E, Rubio C, Lindblom A. Adenoma prevalence and cancer risk in familial non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Gut. 2002;50:228–34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
44. Rijcken FE, Hollema H, Kleibeuker JH. Proximal adenomas in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer are prone to rapid malignant transformation. Gut. 2002;50:382–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
45. de Jong AE, Morreau H, Van Puijenbroek M, Eilers PH, Wijnen J, Nagengast FM, et al. The role of mismatch repair gene defects in the development of adenomas in patients with HNPCC. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:42–8. [PubMed]
46. Pino MS, Mino-Kenudson M, Wildemore BM, Ganguly A, Batten J, Sperduti I, et al. Deficient DNA mismatch repair is common in Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal adenomas. J Mol Diagn. 2009;11:238–47. [PubMed]
47. Hendriks YM, Wagner A, Morreau H, Menko F, Stormorken A, Quehenberger F, et al. Cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer due to MSH6 mutations: impact on counseling and surveillance. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:17–25. [PubMed]
48. Buttin BM, Powell MA, Mutch DG, Babb SA, Huettner PC, Edmonston TB, et al. Penetrance and expressivity of MSH6 germline mutations in seven kindreds not ascertained by family history. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74:1262–9. [PubMed]
49. Dunlop MG, Farrington SM, Carothers AD, Wyllie AH, Sharp L, Burn J, et al. Cancer risk associated with germline DNA mismatch repair gene mutations. Hum Mol Genet. 1997;6:105–10. [PubMed]
50. Quehenberger F, Vasen HF, van Houwelingen HC. Risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer for carriers of mutations of the hMLH1 and hMSH2 gene: correction for ascertainment. J Med Genet. 2005;42:491–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
51. Wagner A, Hendriks Y, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, de Leeuw WJ, Morreau H, Hofstra R, et al. Atypical HNPCC owing to MSH6 germline mutations: analysis of a large Dutch pedigree. J Med Genet. 2001;38:318–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
52. Senter L, Clendenning M, Sotamaa K, Hampel H, Green J, Potter JD, et al. The clinical phenotype of Lynch syndrome due to germ-line PMS2 mutations. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:419–28. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
53. Barrow E, Alduaij W, Robinson L, Shenton A, Clancy T, Lalloo F, et al. Colorectal cancer in HNPCC: cumulative lifetime incidence, survival and tumour distribution. A report of 121 families with proven mutations. Clin Genet. 2008;74:233–42. [PubMed]
54. Stoffel E, Mukherjee B, Raymond VM, Tayob N, Kastrinos F, Sparr J, et al. Calculation of risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer among patients with Lynch Syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1621–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
55. Aaltonen LA, Salovaara R, Kristo P, Canzian F, Hemminki A, Peltomaki P, et al. Incidence of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and the feasibility of molecular screening for the disease. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1481–7. [PubMed]
56. Gryfe R, Kim H, Hsieh ET, Aronson MD, Holowaty EJ, Bull SB, et al. Tumor microsatellite instability and clinical outcome in young patients with colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:69–77. [PubMed]
57. Barnetson RA, Tenesa A, Farrington SM, Nicholl ID, Cetnarskyj R, Porteous ME, et al. Identification and survival of carriers of mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes in colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2751–63. [PubMed]
58. Watson P, Lin KM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Smyrk T, Lemon S, Shashidharan M, et al. Colorectal carcinoma survival among hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma family members. Cancer. 1998;83:259–66. [PubMed]
59. Sankila R, Aaltonen LA, Jarvinen HJ, Mecklin JP. Better survival rates in patients with MLH1-associated hereditary colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 1996;110:682–7. [PubMed]
60. Aarnio M, Mustonen H, Mecklin JP, Jarvinen HJ. Prognosis of colorectal cancer varies in different high-risk conditions. Ann Med. 1998;30:75–80. [PubMed]
61. Lin KM, Shashidharan M, Thorson AG, Ternent CA, Blatchford GJ, Christensen MA, et al. Cumulative incidence of colorectal and extra-colonic cancers in MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 1998;2:67–71. [PubMed]
62. Mecklin JP, Jarvinen HJ. Clinical features of colorectal carcinoma in cancer family syndrome. Dis Colon Rectum. 1986;29:160–4. [PubMed]
63. Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Vasen HF, Pekka-Mecklin J, Myrhoj T, Rozen P, Bertario L, et al. Rectal cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer after abdominal colectomy. International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. Ann Surg. 1997;225:202–7. [PubMed]
64. Hampel H, Stephens JA, Pukkala E, Sankila R, Aaltonen LA, Mecklin JP, et al. Cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: later age of onset. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:415–21. [PubMed]
65. Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, Salovaara R, Aaltonen LA, de la Chapelle A, et al. Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer. 1999;81:214–8. [PubMed]
66. Jenkins MA, Baglietto L, Dowty JG, Van Vliet CM, Smith L, Mead LJ, et al. Cancer risks for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: a population-based early onset case-family study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:489–98. [PubMed]
67. Schmeler KM, Lu KH. Gynecologic cancers associated with Lynch syndrome/HNPCC. Clin Transl Oncol. 2008;10:313–7. [PubMed]
68. Boks DE, Trujillo AP, Voogd AC, Morreau H, Kenter GG, Vasen HF. Survival analysis of endometrial carcinoma associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2002;102:198–200. [PubMed]
69. Rex DK. Colonoscopy: a review of its yield for cancers and adenomas by indication. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:353–65. [PubMed]
70. Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brolmann HA, Heintz AP. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. Cancer. 2000;89:1765–72. [PubMed]
71. Dove-Edwin I, Boks D, Goff S, Kenter GG, Carpenter R, Vasen HF, et al. The outcome of endometrial carcinoma surveillance by ultrasound scan in women at risk of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma and familial colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;94:1708–12. [PubMed]
72. Stoffel EM, Garber JE, Grover S, Russo L, Johnson J, Syngal S. Cancer surveillance is often inadequate in people at high risk for colorectal cancer. J Med Genet. 2003;40:e54. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
73. Wagner A, van Kessel I, Kriege MG, Tops CM, Wijnen JT, Vasen HF, et al. Long term follow-up of HNPCC gene mutation carriers: compliance with screening and satisfaction with counseling and screening procedures. Fam Cancer. 2005;4:295–300. [PubMed]
74. Collins V, Meiser B, Gaff C, St John DJ, Halliday J. Screening and preventive behaviors one year after predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104:273–81. [PubMed]
75. Ramsey SD, Burke W, Clarke L. An economic viewpoint on alternative strategies for identifying persons with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Genet Med. 2003;5:353–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
76. Kwon JS, Sun CC, Peterson SK, White KG, Daniels MS, Boyd-Rogers SG, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prevention strategies for gynecologic cancers in Lynch syndrome. Cancer. 2008;113:326–35. [PubMed]
77. Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Wilschut J, Knudsen AB, van Ballegooijen M, Kuntz KM. Cost-effectiveness of DNA stool testing to screen for colorectal cancer: Report to Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and CMS from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) for MISCAN and SimCRC Models. 2007.
78. Ness RM, Holmes AM, Klein R, Dittus R. Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:1650–7. [PubMed]
79. Van Duijvendijk P, Slors JF, Taat CW, Oosterveld P, Sprangers MA, Obertop H, et al. Quality of life after total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis or proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis. Br J Surg. 2000;87:590–6. [PubMed]
80. Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available) Value Health. 2008;11:1131–43. [PubMed]
81. Gritz ER, Peterson SK, Vernon SW, Marani SK, Baile WF, Watts BG, et al. Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1902–10. [PubMed]
82. Mvundura M, Grosse SD, Hampel H, Palomaki GE. The cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies for Lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer. Genet Med. 2010;12:93–104. [PubMed]