Literature DB >> 12357330

Testing for BRCA1 mutations: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Christine Sevilla1, Jean-Paul Moatti, Claire Julian-Reynier, François Eisinger, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, Brigitte Bressac-de Paillerets, Hagay Sobol.   

Abstract

Breast carcinoma is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world. The hereditary forms, which amount from 5 to 10% of all the cases of breast cancer, mainly involve BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Due to the diagnostic strategy used by the patent owner, Direct DNA sequencing (DS) may become the only BRCA1/2 test procedure available, although there exist several alternative strategies. A cost-effectiveness study was carried out using BRCA1 testing as a model. The main techniques available for performing mutation searches were assessed: DS, denaturing high performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC), single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP), denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE), heteroduplex analysis (HA), fluorescent assisted mismatch analysis (FAMA) and the protein truncation test (PTT). Twenty strategies involving the use of one or more techniques were then devised for performing the complete genetic analysis. DS was adopted as the 'gold standard' for effectiveness. All the strategies except for DS involved a two-step procedure. The first step consisted of pre-screening the 22 coding exons of BRCA1. The second step consisted of performing DS only on the variations detected in the coding sequence. The cost of the strategies tested, including a pre-screening stage, turned out to be 30 to 90% lower than that of DS, whatever annual use was made of the equipment. The most cost-effective strategy, ie, that corresponding to the lowest cost per mutation detected, was found to be a combination between PTT on exon 11 (60% of the coding sequence) and HA on the remaining 21 exons (PTT(11)+ HA(21)). However, since a high false negative rate is associated with this strategy, at least four other strategies are worth mentioning: PTT(11)+ DHPLC(21), DHPLC alone, FAMA(11)+ DHPLC(21) and FAMA alone. Our results on genetic testing for breast cancer show that DS is not the most cost-effective method available. The monopolist approach of the firm which owns the patents on the BRCA1/2 genes, may, therefore limit the use of the most cost-effective strategies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12357330     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200854

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  14 in total

1.  Patenting genes.

Authors:  Gert Matthijs
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-12-11

Review 2.  Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders.

Authors:  Frauke Becker; Carla G van El; Dolores Ibarreta; Eleni Zika; Stuart Hogarth; Pascal Borry; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Jean Jacques Cassiman; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Shirley Hodgson; A Cécile J W Janssens; Helena Kaariainen; Michael Krawczak; Ulf Kristoffersson; Jan Lubinski; Christine Patch; Victor B Penchaszadeh; Andrew Read; Wolf Rogowski; Jorge Sequeiros; Lisbeth Tranebjaerg; Irene M van Langen; Helen Wallace; Ron Zimmern; Jörg Schmidtke; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?

Authors:  Fernando Antoñanzas; R Rodríguez-Ibeas; M F Hutter; R Lorente; C Juárez; M Pinillos
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-05-20

4.  Retinoblastoma: genetic testing versus conventional clinical screening in India.

Authors:  Biju Joseph; Mahesh Palanivelu Shanmugam; Madhuravasal Krishnan Srinivasan; Govindasamy Kumaramanickavel
Journal:  Mol Diagn       Date:  2004

Review 5.  Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States.

Authors:  Ashwin Agarwal; Lauren C Sayres; Mildred K Cho; Robert Cook-Deegan; Subhashini Chandrasekharan
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.050

6.  Description and validation of high-throughput simultaneous genotyping and mutation scanning by high-resolution melting curve analysis.

Authors:  Tú Nguyen-Dumont; Florence Le Calvez-Kelm; Nathalie Forey; Sandrine McKay-Chopin; Sonia Garritano; Lydie Gioia-Patricola; Deepika De Silva; Ron Weigel; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Fabienne Lesueur; Sean V Tavtigian
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.878

7.  A comparison of CDKN2A mutation detection within the Melanoma Genetics Consortium (GenoMEL).

Authors:  Mark Harland; Alisa M Goldstein; Kairen Kukalizch; Claire Taylor; David Hogg; Susana Puig; Celia Badenas; Nelleke Gruis; Jeanet ter Huurne; Wilma Bergman; Nicholas K Hayward; Mitchell Stark; Hensin Tsao; Margaret A Tucker; Maria Teresa Landi; Giovanna Bianchi Scarra; Paola Ghiorzo; Peter A Kanetsky; David Elder; Graham J Mann; Elizabeth A Holland; D Timothy Bishop; Julia Newton Bishop
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-04-03       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Myriad Genetics: In the eye of the policy storm.

Authors:  E Richard Gold; Julia Carbone
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing for inherited susceptibility to cancer: comparing breast and ovarian cancers with colon cancers.

Authors:  Robert Cook-Deegan; Christopher DeRienzo; Julia Carbone; Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Christopher Heaney; Christopher Conover
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Gene patents and personalized medicine - what lies ahead?

Authors:  Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Robert Cook-Deegan
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2009-09-28       Impact factor: 11.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.