The Lancet Regional Health. Western Pacific (Mar 2024)
Benefits and harms of polygenic risk scores in organised cancer screening programmes: a cost-effectiveness analysisResearch in context
Abstract
Summary: Background: While polygenic risk scores (PRS) could enable the streamlining of organised cancer screening programmes, its current discriminative ability is limited. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to trade-off the benefits and harms of PRS-stratified cancer screening in China. Methods: The validated National Cancer Center (NCC) modelling framework for six cancers (lung, liver, breast, gastric, colorectum, and oesophagus) was used to simulate cancer incidence, progression, stage-specific cancer detection, and risk of death. We estimated the number of cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, number needed to screen (NNS), overdiagnosis, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one-time PRS-stratified screening strategy (screening 25% of PRS-defined high-risk population) for a birth cohort at age 60 in 2025, compared with unstratified screening strategy (screening 25% of general population) and no screening strategy. We applied lifetime horizon, societal perspective, and 3% discount rate. An ICER less than $18,364 per QALY gained is considered cost-effective. Findings: One-time cancer screening for population aged 60 was the most cost-effective strategy compared to screening at other ages. Compared with an unstratified screening strategy, the PRS-stratified screening strategy averted more cancer deaths (61,237 vs. 40,329), had a lower NNS to prevent one death (307 vs. 451), had a slightly higher overdiagnosis (14.1% vs. 13.8%), and associated with an additional 130,045 QALYs at an additional cost of $1942 million, over a lifetime horizon. The ICER for all six cancers combined was $14,930 per QALY gained, with the ICER varying from $7928 in colorectal cancer to $39,068 in liver cancer. ICER estimates were sensitive to changes in risk threshold and cost of PRS tools. Interpretation: PRS-stratified screening strategy modestly improves clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of organised cancer screening programmes. Reducing the costs of polygenic risk stratification is needed before PRS implementation. Funding: The Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the Jing-jin-ji Special Projects for Basic Research Cooperation, and the Sanming Project of the Medicine in Shenzhen.
