PURPOSE: National guidelines recommend a 21-gene recurrence score (RS) to aid in adjuvant treatment decision in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) -positive, lymph node (LN) -negative early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). This study was performed to assess the economic implication of the assay in community practices from the perspective of a US payer. METHODS: The study analyzed 952 women with ESBC enrolled with Humana (Louisville, KY) who were tested with the 21-gene RS between June 2006 and June 2010. The proportion of women classified by the assay according to RS risk category, use, and costs of chemotherapy regimens and supportive care, and costs of adverse events were obtained from Humana. We adopted a validated Markov model to compute the cost implications of RS for a representative patient. The probability of risk of recurrence, the chemotherapy benefit, and the decision impact of RS were derived from published studies. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five patients within the tested population received adjuvant chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 10% of women at low risk, 36% of women at intermediate risk, and 72% of women at high risk of recurrence. On the basis of a meta-analysis in the reduction of chemotherapy after RS, the model estimated an average test saving of $1,160 per patient. The immediate direct savings for chemotherapy drugs, supportive care, and management of adverse events were $1,885, $2,578, and $472, respectively. Prevention of recurrence through appropriate treatment of patients at high risk resulted in additional savings of $199. CONCLUSION: The adoption of the 21-gene RS led to targeted management of women with ER-positive, LN-negative ESBC and consequently directed savings to the payer.
PURPOSE: National guidelines recommend a 21-gene recurrence score (RS) to aid in adjuvant treatment decision in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) -positive, lymph node (LN) -negative early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). This study was performed to assess the economic implication of the assay in community practices from the perspective of a US payer. METHODS: The study analyzed 952 women with ESBC enrolled with Humana (Louisville, KY) who were tested with the 21-gene RS between June 2006 and June 2010. The proportion of women classified by the assay according to RS risk category, use, and costs of chemotherapy regimens and supportive care, and costs of adverse events were obtained from Humana. We adopted a validated Markov model to compute the cost implications of RS for a representative patient. The probability of risk of recurrence, the chemotherapy benefit, and the decision impact of RS were derived from published studies. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five patients within the tested population received adjuvant chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 10% of women at low risk, 36% of women at intermediate risk, and 72% of women at high risk of recurrence. On the basis of a meta-analysis in the reduction of chemotherapy after RS, the model estimated an average test saving of $1,160 per patient. The immediate direct savings for chemotherapy drugs, supportive care, and management of adverse events were $1,885, $2,578, and $472, respectively. Prevention of recurrence through appropriate treatment of patients at high risk resulted in additional savings of $199. CONCLUSION: The adoption of the 21-gene RS led to targeted management of women with ER-positive, LN-negative ESBC and consequently directed savings to the payer.
Authors: Z Philips; L Ginnelly; M Sculpher; K Claxton; S Golder; R Riemsma; N Woolacoot; J Glanville Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Juhi Asad; Allyson F Jacobson; Alison Estabrook; Sharon Rosenbaum Smith; Susan K Boolbol; Sheldon M Feldman; Michael P Osborne; Kwadwo Boachie-Adjei; Wendy Twardzik; Paul I Tartter Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: M J Piccart; A Di Leo; M Beauduin; A Vindevoghel; J Michel; C Focan; A Tagnon; F Ries; P Gobert; C Finet; M T Closon-Dejardin; J P Dufrane; J Kerger; F Liebens; S Beauvois; S Bartholomeus; S Dolci; J P Lobelle; M Paesmans; J M Nogaret Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joan L Warren; K Robin Yabroff; Angela Meekins; Marie Topor; Elizabeth B Lamont; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-06-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Leonard R Henry; Alexander Stojadinovic; Sandra M Swain; Sheila Prindiville; Rose Cordes; Peter W Soballe Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Shelly S Lo; Patricia B Mumby; John Norton; Karen Rychlik; Jeffrey Smerage; Joseph Kash; Helen K Chew; Ellen R Gaynor; Daniel F Hayes; Andrew Epstein; Kathy S Albain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Sinn; S Aulmann; R Wirtz; S Schott; F Marmé; Z Varga; A Lebeau; H Kreipe; A Schneeweiss Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Anton Safonov; Shiyi Wang; Cary P Gross; Divyansh Agarwal; Giampaolo Bianchini; Lajos Pusztai; Christos Hatzis Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-01-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: G Thomas Ray; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Laurel A Habel; Scott Ramsey; Lawrence H Kushi; Yan Li; Tracy A Lieu Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 2.229