Literature DB >> 23775560

Assessing the potential cost-effectiveness of retesting IHC0, IHC1+, or FISH-negative early stage breast cancer patients for HER2 status.

Louis P Garrison1, Deepa Lalla, Melissa Brammer, Joseph B Babigumira, Bruce Wang, Edith A Perez.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests are commonly used to assess human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) status of tumors in patients with breast cancer. This analysis evaluates the likely cost-effectiveness of expanded retesting to assess HER2 tumor status in women with early stage breast cancer.
METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of expanded reflex testing from a US payer perspective. Expanded reflex testing is defined as retesting tumor specimens from patients whose tumors are IHC0, IHC1+, or FISH-negative on their first test. In the base case, we assumed that 80% of patient tumors are initially IHC-tested and 20% are FISH-tested. Testing outcomes for IHC and FISH with and without retesting were based on published meta-analyses. The cost of tests and treatment and the long-term health outcomes were obtained from the literature.
RESULTS: In the base case, we estimated that 2.27% of women who received expanded reflex testing would be HER2-positive and receive trastuzumab treatment: the projected ICER was $36,721 per life year or $39,745 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). This varied between $47,100 per QALY and $35,500 per QALY if we assumed that 1%-8% of patients retested were then HER2+, respectively. The results of deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were robust. This strategy would result in 4700 (2000-17,000) patients being eligible to receive trastuzumab treatment annually.
CONCLUSIONS: Retesting patients who are IHC0, IHC1+, or FISH-negative is projected to be a cost-effective clinical strategy.
Copyright © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HER2; HER2 testing; Herceptin; adjuvant; cost-effectiveness; cost-utility; early breast cancer; economics; pharmacoeconomics; trastuzumab

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23775560     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28196

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  9 in total

1.  Discordance between original and central laboratories in ER and HER2 results in a diverse, population-based sample.

Authors:  Jennifer J Griggs; Ann S Hamilton; Kendra L Schwartz; Weiqiang Zhao; Paul H Abrahamse; Dafydd G Thomas; Julie M Jorns; Rachel Jewell; Maria E Sibug Saber; Reina Haque; Steven J Katz
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression in breast cancer: correlation with clinical pathological features.

Authors:  Shu-Fang Ning; Ji-Lin Li; Cheng-Piao Luo; Chang-Hong Wei; Yong-Kui Lu; Hai-Zhou Liu; Wen-E Wei; Li-Tu Zhang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2014-12-01

3.  Biomarker testing for breast, lung, and gastroesophageal cancers at NCI designated cancer centers.

Authors:  Julian C Schink; Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Kalliopi P Siziopikou; Gregory J Tsongalis; Alfred W Rademaker; Jyoti D Patel; Al B Benson; Edith A Perez; William J Gradishar
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Guidance for the Harmonisation and Improvement of Economic Evaluations of Personalised Medicine.

Authors:  Heleen Vellekoop; Simone Huygens; Matthijs Versteegh; László Szilberhorn; Tamás Zelei; Balázs Nagy; Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova; Apostolos Tsiachristas; Sarah Wordsworth; Maureen Rutten-van Mölken
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  HER2 gene and protein expression status of breast carcinoma can be reliably tested on a single slide.

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Chenard; Marie-Pierre Wissler; Noëlle Weingertner; Carole Mathelin; Jean-Pierre Bellocq
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 4.064

6.  Quantitative measurement of HER2 expression in breast cancers: comparison with 'real-world' routine HER2 testing in a multicenter Collaborative Biomarker Study and correlation with overall survival.

Authors:  Denise A Yardley; Peter A Kaufman; Weidong Huang; Lea Krekow; Michael Savin; William E Lawler; Stephen Zrada; Alexander Starr; Harvey Einhorn; Lee S Schwartzberg; John W Adams; Yolanda Lie; Agnes C Paquet; Jeff Sperinde; Mojgan Haddad; Steve Anderson; Marlon Brigino; Rick Pesano; Michael P Bates; Jodi Weidler; Linda Bosserman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  FISH testing of HER2 immunohistochemistry 1+ invasive breast cancer with unfavorable characteristics.

Authors:  Stella Petroni; Lucia Caldarola; Rachele Scamarcio; Francesco Giotta; Agnese Latorre; Anita Mangia; Giovanni Simone
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 2.967

8.  Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stuart J Wright; William G Newman; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Peter A Kaufman; Kenneth J Bloom; Howard Burris; Julie R Gralow; Musa Mayer; Mark Pegram; Hope S Rugo; Sandra M Swain; Denise A Yardley; Miu Chau; Deepa Lalla; Bongin Yoo; Melissa G Brammer; Charles L Vogel
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 6.860

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.