Using Mendelian Randomization to model the causal effect of cancer on health economic outcomes and to simulate the cost-effectiveness of anti-cancer interventions
Dixon, P.; Martin, R.; Harrison, S.
Show abstract
BACKGROUNDCancer is associated with significant economic impacts. Quantifying the scale of these impacts is challenged by confounding variables that jointly influence both cancer status and economic outcomes such as healthcare costs and quality of life. Moreover, the increasing costs attributed to cancer drug development complicate the cost-effective provision of cancer care. METHODSWe address both challenges in this paper by using germline genetic variation in the risk of incident cancer as instrumental variables in Mendelian Randomization analyses of eight cancers. We developed causal estimates of the genetically predicted effect of bladder, breast, colorectal, lung, multiple myeloma, ovarian, prostate and thyroid cancers on healthcare costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) using outcome data drawn from the UK Biobank cohort. We then used Mendelian Randomization to model a hypothetical population-wide preventative intervention based on a repurposed class of anti-diabetic drugs known as sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors very recently shown to reduce the odds of incident prostate cancer. RESULTSGenetic liability to prostate cancer and to breast cancer had material causal impacts on healthcare costs and QALYs. Mendelian Randomization results for the less common cancers were associated with considerable uncertainty. SGLT2 inhibition was unlikely to be a cost-effective preventative intervention for prostate cancer, although this conclusion depended on the price at which these drugs would be offered for a novel anti-cancer indication. IMPLICATIONSOur new causal estimates of cancer exposures on health economic outcomes may be used as inputs into decision analytic models of cancer interventions such as screening programmes or simulations of longer-term outcomes associated with therapies investigated in RCTs with short follow-ups. Our new method allows us to rapidly and efficiently estimate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical population-scale anti-cancer intervention to inform and complement other means of assessing long-term intervention cost-effectiveness.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Cost-effectiveness of CA125- and age-informed risk-based triage for ovarian cancer detection in primary care 93%
- Observational and genetic associations between cardiorespiratory fitness and cancer: a UK Biobank and international consortia study 92%
- CA125 and age-based models for ovarian cancer detection in primary care: a population-based external validation study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Free testosterone and malignant melanoma risk in men: prospective analyses of testosterone and SHBG with 19 cancers in men and postmenopausal women UK Biobank 94%
- Circulating white blood cell traits and colorectal cancer risk: A Mendelian randomization study 92%
- Cancer and the risk of COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalisation, and death: a population-based multi-state cohort study including 4,618,377 adults in Catalonia, Spain 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetically-proxied therapeutic inhibition of antihypertensive drug targets and risk of common cancers 92%
- Robust causal inference for long-term policy decisions: cost effectiveness of interventions for obesity using Mendelian randomization 90%
- Assessing a causal relationship between circulating lipids and breast cancer risk: Mendelian randomization study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Separating the effects of early and later life adiposity on colorectal cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization study 93%
- Risk of cancer in regular and low meat-eaters, fish-eaters, and vegetarians: a prospective analysis of UK Biobank participants 92%
- Identifying molecular mediators of the relationship between body mass index and endometrial cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.