Caroline S Bennette1, Carlos J Gallego2, Wylie Burke3, Gail P Jarvik4, David L Veenstra5. 1. Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. 1] Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA [2] Department of Medicine and Genome Sciences, Division of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 3. Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. Department of Medicine and Genome Sciences, Division of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 5. 1] Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA [2] Institute for Public Health Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended that clinical laboratories performing next-generation sequencing analyze and return pathogenic variants for 56 specific genes it considered medically actionable. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of returning these results. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic policy model to project the quality-adjusted life-years and lifetime costs associated with returning ACMG-recommended incidental findings in three hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 patients. RESULTS: Returning incidental findings to cardiomyopathy patients, colorectal cancer patients, or healthy individuals would increase costs by $896,000, $2.9 million, and $3.9 million, respectively, and would increase quality-adjusted life-years by 20, 25.4, and 67 years, respectively, for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $44,800, $115,020, and $58,600, respectively. In probabilistic analyses, returning incidental findings cost less than $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 85, 28, and 91%, respectively, of simulations. Assuming next-generation sequencing costs $500, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for primary screening of healthy individuals was $133,400 (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 10% of simulations). Results were sensitive to the cohort age and assumptions about gene penetrance. CONCLUSION: Returning incidental findings is likely cost-effective for certain patient populations. Screening of generally healthy individuals is likely not cost-effective based on current data, unless next-generation sequencing costs less than $500.
PURPOSE: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended that clinical laboratories performing next-generation sequencing analyze and return pathogenic variants for 56 specific genes it considered medically actionable. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of returning these results. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic policy model to project the quality-adjusted life-years and lifetime costs associated with returning ACMG-recommended incidental findings in three hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 patients. RESULTS: Returning incidental findings to cardiomyopathy patients, colorectal cancer patients, or healthy individuals would increase costs by $896,000, $2.9 million, and $3.9 million, respectively, and would increase quality-adjusted life-years by 20, 25.4, and 67 years, respectively, for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $44,800, $115,020, and $58,600, respectively. In probabilistic analyses, returning incidental findings cost less than $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 85, 28, and 91%, respectively, of simulations. Assuming next-generation sequencing costs $500, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for primary screening of healthy individuals was $133,400 (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 10% of simulations). Results were sensitive to the cohort age and assumptions about gene penetrance. CONCLUSION: Returning incidental findings is likely cost-effective for certain patient populations. Screening of generally healthy individuals is likely not cost-effective based on current data, unless next-generation sequencing costs less than $500.
Authors: Gregory F Guzauskas; Denise M Boudreau; Kathleen F Villa; Steven R Levine; David L Veenstra Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Sharon J Hirshey Dirksen; Marilyn Green Larach; Henry Rosenberg; Barbara W Brandom; Jerome Parness; Robert Scott Lang; Meera Gangadharan; Tyler Pezalski Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Michael O Dorschner; Laura M Amendola; Emily H Turner; Peggy D Robertson; Brian H Shirts; Carlos J Gallego; Robin L Bennett; Kelly L Jones; Mari J Tokita; James T Bennett; Jerry H Kim; Elisabeth A Rosenthal; Daniel S Kim; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad; Arno G Motulsky; C Ronald Scott; Colin C Pritchard; Tom Walsh; Wylie Burke; Wendy H Raskind; Peter Byers; Fuki M Hisama; Deborah A Nickerson; Gail P Jarvik Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Tuan A Dinh; Benjamin I Rosner; James C Atwood; C Richard Boland; Sapna Syngal; Hans F A Vasen; Stephen B Gruber; Randall W Burt Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2010-11-18
Authors: Kathleen T Unroe; Melissa A Greiner; Adrian F Hernandez; David J Whellan; Padma Kaul; Kevin A Schulman; Eric D Peterson; Lesley H Curtis Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-10-11
Authors: Peter W Groeneveld; Mary Anne Matta; Janice J Suh; Paul A Heidenreich; Judy A Shea Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-10-04 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Michael Brandle; Mayer B Davidson; David L Schriger; Brett Lorber; William H Herman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elena B Elkin; Deborah A Marshall; Nathalie A Kulin; Ilia L Ferrusi; Michael J Hassett; Uri Ladabaum; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Adam S Gordon; Elisabeth A Rosenthal; David S Carrell; Laura M Amendola; Michael O Dorschner; Aaron Scrol; Ian B Stanaway; Shannon DeVange; James D Ralston; Hana Zouk; Heidi L Rehm; Eric Larson; David R Crosslin; Kathy A Leppig; Gail P Jarvik Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Robert C Green; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Paul S Appelbaum; Jonathan S Berg; Barbara A Bernhardt; Leslie G Biesecker; Sawona Biswas; Carrie L Blout; Kevin M Bowling; Kyle B Brothers; Wylie Burke; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Wendy K Chung; Ellen W Clayton; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Levi A Garraway; Jeremy R Garrett; Stacy W Gray; Gail E Henderson; Lucia A Hindorff; Ingrid A Holm; Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Carolyn M Hutter; Pasi A Janne; Steven Joffe; David Kaufman; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Ian D Krantz; Teri A Manolio; Laurence McCullough; Jean McEwen; Amy McGuire; Donna Muzny; Richard M Myers; Deborah A Nickerson; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Gloria M Petersen; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; J Scott Roberts; Dan Robinson; Joseph S Salama; Sarah Scollon; Richard R Sharp; Brian Shirts; Nancy B Spinner; Holly K Tabor; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; David L Veenstra; Nikhil Wagle; Karen Weck; Benjamin S Wilfond; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Susan M Wolf; Julia Wynn; Joon-Ho Yu Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Andrew J Darnell; Howard Austin; David A Bluemke; Richard O Cannon; Kenneth Fischbeck; William Gahl; David Goldman; Christine Grady; Mark H Greene; Steven M Holland; Sara Chandros Hull; Forbes D Porter; David Resnik; Wendy S Rubinstein; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 11.025