Literature DB >> 26105668

Use and Costs for Tumor Gene Expression Profiling Panels in the Management of Breast Cancer From 2006 to 2012: Implications for Genomic Test Adoption Among Private Payers.

Megan C Roberts1, Stacie B Dusetzina2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Tumor gene expression profiling (GEP) can be used to predict recurrence risk and the potential benefit of breast cancer treatment. Adoption of GEP among privately insured patients has not been well studied. Our objectives were to characterize trends in GEP use and to evaluate per-use patient and health plan payments from 2006 to 2012.
METHODS: We used Truven Health Analytics MarketScan administrative claims database to examine GEP testing among women with breast cancer from 2006 to 2012 (N = 154,883). We estimated trends in the proportion of women who received GEP using segmented regression. We summarized average reimbursement for GEP, including insurer payments and patient out-of-pocket payments.
RESULTS: Overall, 18,575 women received GEP. The average age was 53.6 years, and most were enrolled in a preferred provider organization health plan. The adjusted proportion of women with breast cancer who received GEP grew from 2.2% in 2006 to 18.8% in 2012 (adjusted risk ratio, 8.4; 95% CI, 7.6 to 9.3). Out-of-pocket costs to the patient ranged from $0 to $4,752. Most patients paid nothing for GEP (median, $0; interquartile ratio, $4). Mean patient out-of-pocket costs were $175 (standard deviation [SD], $484). Private-insurer reimbursed amounts for GEP increased annually from an average of $3,125 (SD, $1,523) in 2006 to $3,680 (SD, $835) by 2012.
CONCLUSION: GEP has rapidly diffused into clinical practice. Reimbursements by insurers have increased slowly, and average out-of-pocket costs to patients have decreased, seemingly driven by improved coverage for testing over time. As more genetic tests become available, it will be important to understand how these technologies will affect cancer care costs across the US health care system.
Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26105668     DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2015.003624

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oncol Pract        ISSN: 1554-7477            Impact factor:   3.840


  12 in total

1.  Exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of precision medicine treatment strategies for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Authors:  Qiushi Chen; Ashley D Staton; Turgay Ayer; Daniel A Goldstein; Jean L Koff; Christopher R Flowers
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2017-10-25

2.  Oncologist and organizational factors associated with variation in breast cancer multigene testing.

Authors:  Tracy A Lieu; G Thomas Ray; Stephanie R Prausnitz; Laurel A Habel; Stacey Alexeeff; Yan Li; Scott D Ramsey; Charles E Phelps; Neetu Chawla; Suzanne C O'Neill; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Utilization Patterns and Trends in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Mutation Testing Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Chan Shen; Kenneth L Kehl; Bo Zhao; George R Simon; Shouhao Zhou; Sharon H Giordano
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 4.785

Review 4.  The Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden of Cancer Care-A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Nicolas Iragorri; Claire de Oliveira; Natalie Fitzgerald; Beverley Essue
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Breast cancer multigene testing trends and impact on chemotherapy use.

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

6.  Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options.

Authors:  Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova; James Buchanan; Heleen Vellekoop; Simone Huygens; Matthijs Versteegh; Maureen Rutten-van Mölken; László Szilberhorn; Tamás Zelei; Balázs Nagy; Sarah Wordsworth; Apostolos Tsiachristas
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  The Payer and Patient Cost Burden of Open Breast Conserving Procedures Following Percutaneous Breast Biopsy.

Authors:  Chloe C Kimball; Christine I Nichols; Joshua G Vose
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Auckl)       Date:  2018-06-04

8.  Prognostic Impact of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Among Young Women With Node-Negative and Node-Positive ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Philip D Poorvu; Shari I Gelber; Shoshana M Rosenberg; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla M Tamimi; Laura C Collins; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Lidia Schapira; Virginia F Borges; Steven E Come; Ellen Warner; Debbie M Jakubowski; Christy Russell; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Trends and patterns in the use of opioids among metastatic breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Chan Shen; J Douglas Thornton; Kristina Newport; Eric Schaefer; Shouhao Zhou; Nelson S Yee; Daleela Dodge; Douglas Leslie
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Prolonged Opioid Use After Surgery for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Chan Shen; J Douglas Thornton; Dian Gu; Daleela Dodge; Shouhao Zhou; Weiguo He; Hui Zhao; Sharon H Giordano
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 5.837

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.