OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the value of research of the RxPONDER study, an ongoing comparative effectiveness RCT designed to evaluate a 21-gene profile in early stage, node-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We developed a disease-based decision-analytic model to compare use of the 21-gene profile versus standard care. Key clinical data were derived from SWOG-8814, an RCT of chemotherapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. Other model parameters were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic simulations and value of information calculations were used to assess the expected value of sample information (EVSI) and the expected value of sample parameter information (EVSPI). RESULTS: The cost of the RxPONDER trial is expected to be at least $27 million. The expected value of research of the RxPONDER trial ranged from $450 million to $1 billion, representing a return of 17 to 39 times the projected cost of the trial. The primary objective of RxPONDER, to assess survival, had the largest estimated value relative to other model inputs. The value of RxPONDER increased by $50 million to $100 million after stakeholder input on additional data collection. CONCLUSION: The RxPONDER study appears to represent a good investment of public research funds. Stakeholder engagement and assessment of the return on investment should be considered to optimize and quantify the value of comparative effectiveness studies.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the value of research of the RxPONDER study, an ongoing comparative effectiveness RCT designed to evaluate a 21-gene profile in early stage, node-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We developed a disease-based decision-analytic model to compare use of the 21-gene profile versus standard care. Key clinical data were derived from SWOG-8814, an RCT of chemotherapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. Other model parameters were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic simulations and value of information calculations were used to assess the expected value of sample information (EVSI) and the expected value of sample parameter information (EVSPI). RESULTS: The cost of the RxPONDER trial is expected to be at least $27 million. The expected value of research of the RxPONDER trial ranged from $450 million to $1 billion, representing a return of 17 to 39 times the projected cost of the trial. The primary objective of RxPONDER, to assess survival, had the largest estimated value relative to other model inputs. The value of RxPONDER increased by $50 million to $100 million after stakeholder input on additional data collection. CONCLUSION: The RxPONDER study appears to represent a good investment of public research funds. Stakeholder engagement and assessment of the return on investment should be considered to optimize and quantify the value of comparative effectiveness studies.
Authors: Nina Oestreicher; Scott D Ramsey; Hannah M Linden; Jeannine S McCune; Laura J van't Veer; Wylie Burke; David L Veenstra Journal: Genet Med Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: D B Geffen; S Abu-Ghanem; N Sion-Vardy; R Braunstein; M Tokar; S Ariad; B Delgado; M Bayme; M Koretz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Calvin Chao; Huei-Ting Tsai; Chunfu Liu; Bola F Ekezue; Nandini Selvam; Larry G Kessler; Marc D Schwartz; Tania Lobo; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Caroline S Bennette; David L Veenstra; Anirban Basu; Laurence H Baker; Scott D Ramsey; Josh J Carlson Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Minji Koh; Jinhong Jung; Su Ssan Kim; Seung Do Ahn; Eun Kyung Choi; Il Yong Chung; Jong Won Lee; Sung-Bae Kim; Jae Ho Jeong Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; William E Barlow; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Sean Tunis; Laurence Baker; John Crowley; Patricia Deverka; David Veenstra; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Edith A Perez; John A Olson; JoAnne Zujewski; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; James N Atkins; Jeffrey L Berenberg; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Matthew P Goetz; John A Olson; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter M Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Jeffrey Abrams; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245