ABSTRACT
Polygenic risk is known to influence susceptibility to cancer. The use of data on polygenic risk, in conjunction with other predictors of future disease status, may offer significant potential for preventative care through risk-stratified screening programmes. An important element in the evaluation of screening programmes is their cost-effectiveness.
We undertook a systematic review of papers evaluating the cost-effectiveness of screening interventions informed by polygenic risk scores compared to more conventional screening modalities. We included papers reporting cost-effectiveness outcomes in the English language published as articles or uploaded onto preprint servers with no restriction on date, type of cancer or form of polygenic risk modelled. We excluded papers evaluating screening interventions that did not report cost-effectiveness outcomes or which had a focus on monogenic risk. We evaluated studies using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist.
Ten studies were included in the review, which investigated three cancers: prostate (n=5), colorectal (n=3) and breast (n=2). All study designs were cost-utility papers implemented as Markov models (n=6) or microsimulations (n=4). Nine of ten papers scored highly (score >75 on a 0-100) scale) when assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist. Eight of ten studies concluded that polygenic risk informed cancer screening was likely to be more cost-effective than alternatives. However, the included studies lacked robust external data on the cost of polygenic risk stratification, did not account for how very large volumes of polygenic risk data on individuals would be collected and used, did not consider ancestry-related differences in polygenic risk, and did not fully account for downstream economic sequalae stemming from the use of polygenic risk data in these ways. These topics merit attention in future research on how polygenic risk data might contribute to cost-effective cancer screening.
Funding This work was supported by Cancer Research UK under grant number C18281/A29019. PD and RM are members of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol which is supported by the Medical Research Council and the University of Bristol (MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/9). PD, EK ad RMM received support from a Cancer Research UK (C18281/A29019) programme grant (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme). SW and JCT receive funding from the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.
Registration Prospectively registered on PROSPERO database before searches commenced. Available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=243659
Competing Interest Statement
EK reports personal fees from Novartis Pharma AG, Roche, Pfizer Inc and BMS outside the submitted work. RM has received other funding from Cancer Research UK to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of population-based screening and treatment for prostate cancer: the CAP and ProtecT randomized controlled trials. He has also received funding from National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol outside the submitted work.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Cancer Research UK under grant number C18281/A29019. PD and RM are members of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol which is supported by the Medical Research Council and the University of Bristol (MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/9). PD, EK ad RMM received support from a Cancer Research UK (C18281/A29019) programme grant (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme). SW and JCT receive funding from the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The search terms used to interrogate each database are presented in Appendix 2. No other code was used in this review. Template data collection forms are available from the corresponding author on request. All data extracted from each included studied is available in Appendix 3.