The use of gene tests to detect hereditary predisposition to chronic disease: Is cost-effectiveness analysis relevant?

被引:15
作者
Col, NF
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Med,Div Womens Hlth,Decis Syst Grp, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Med,Div Gen Med, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[3] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Radiol,Decis Syst Grp, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
关键词
genomics; BRCA genes; breast neoplasms; cost-benefit analysis; primary prevention;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X03254456
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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 dire 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.
引用
收藏
页码:441 / 448
页数:8
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, Guide to Clinical Preventive Services: Report of the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force
[2]  
Burke W, 2002, J NATL CANCER I, V94, P1185
[3]   Continued breast cancer risk reduction in postmenopausal women treated with raloxifene: 4-year results from the MORE trial [J].
Cauley, JA ;
Norton, L ;
Lippman, ME ;
Eckert, S ;
Krueger, KA ;
Purdie, DW ;
Farrerons, J ;
Karasik, A ;
Mellstrom, D ;
Ng, KW ;
Stepan, JJ ;
Powles, TJ ;
Morrow, M ;
Costa, A ;
Silfen, SL ;
Walls, EL ;
Schmitt, H ;
Muchmore, DB ;
Jordan, VC .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2001, 65 (02) :125-134
[4]  
COHEN MM, 1994, AM J HUM GENET, V55, pR1
[5]   STATEMENT ON USE OF DNA TESTING FOR PRESYMPTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION OF CANCER RISK [J].
COLLINS, FS ;
BENJAMIN, LJ ;
BOTSTEIN, D ;
COX, JR ;
DAVIDSON, N ;
GRAY, JW ;
HOLTZMAN, N ;
HOUSMAN, DE ;
JAMISON, KR ;
NELKIN, D ;
ROTHSTEIN, R ;
SMITH, DC ;
SMITH, LM ;
SPENCE, MA ;
TILGHMAN, SM .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 271 (10) :785-785
[6]   BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer [J].
Couch, FJ ;
DeShano, ML ;
Blackwood, MA ;
Calzone, K ;
Stopfer, J ;
Campeau, L ;
Ganguly, A ;
Rebbeck, T ;
Weber, BL ;
Jablon, L ;
Cobleigh, MA ;
Hoskins, K ;
Garber, JE .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1997, 336 (20) :1409-1415
[7]   Serum estradiol level and risk of breast cancer during treatment with raloxifene [J].
Cummings, SR ;
Duong, T ;
Kenyon, E ;
Cauley, JA ;
Whitehead, M ;
Krueger, KA .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2002, 287 (02) :216-220
[8]   Phenotypes of patients with "simple" mendelian disorders are complex traits: Thresholds, modifiers, and systems dynamics [J].
Dipple, KM ;
McCabe, ERB .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2000, 66 (06) :1729-1735
[9]  
EASTON DF, 1995, AM J HUM GENET, V56, P265
[10]   Cultural basis for differences between US and French clinical recommendations for women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer [J].
Eisinger, F ;
Geller, G ;
Burke, W ;
Holtzman, NA .
LANCET, 1999, 353 (9156) :919-920