Ranjit Manchanda1, Rosa Legood2, Leigh Pearce3, Usha Menon4. 1. Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, EC1A 7BE, UK; Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, W1T 7DN, UK; Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK. 2. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. 3. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA; Department of Preventive Medicine, USC Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. 4. Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, W1T 7DN, UK. Electronic address: u.menon@ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define risk thresholds for cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) for ovarian cancer (OC) prevention in low/intermediate risk postmenopausal women. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compares lifetime costs-&-effects of offering 'RRSO' with 'no RRSO' to postmenopausal women ≥50years for different lifetime OC-risk thresholds: 2%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10%. Well established data from the literature are used to estimate total costs, effects in terms of Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years(QALYs), cancer incidence, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio(ICER) and impact. Costs are reported at 2012 prices; costs/outcomes discounted at 3.5%. Deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) evaluate model uncertainty. RESULTS: RRSO does not save QALYs and is not cost-effective at the 2% general population lifetime OC-risk. At 4% OC-risk RRSO saves QALYs but is not cost-effective. At risk thresholds ≥5%, RRSO saves more life-years and QALYs and is highly cost-effective. The ICERs for OC-risk levels 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% are £15,247, £9958, £4584, and £1864 respectively. The gain in life-years from RRSO equates to 29.2, 40.1, 62.1 and 80.3days at risk thresholds of 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% respectively. The results are not sensitive to treatment costs of RRSO/OC/cardiovascular events but are sensitive to utility-scores for RRSO. On PSA, 67%, 80%, 84%, 91% and 94% of simulations at risk thresholds of 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% respectively are cost-effective for RRSO. CONCLUSION: RRSO is highly cost-effective in postmenopausal women aged >50 with ≥5% lifetime OC-risk and increases life-expectancy by ≥29.2days. The results could have significant clinical implications given the improvements in risk prediction and falling costs of genotyping.
OBJECTIVE: To define risk thresholds for cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) for ovarian cancer (OC) prevention in low/intermediate risk postmenopausal women. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compares lifetime costs-&-effects of offering 'RRSO' with 'no RRSO' to postmenopausal women ≥50years for different lifetime OC-risk thresholds: 2%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10%. Well established data from the literature are used to estimate total costs, effects in terms of Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years(QALYs), cancer incidence, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio(ICER) and impact. Costs are reported at 2012 prices; costs/outcomes discounted at 3.5%. Deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) evaluate model uncertainty. RESULTS: RRSO does not save QALYs and is not cost-effective at the 2% general population lifetime OC-risk. At 4% OC-risk RRSO saves QALYs but is not cost-effective. At risk thresholds ≥5%, RRSO saves more life-years and QALYs and is highly cost-effective. The ICERs for OC-risk levels 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% are £15,247, £9958, £4584, and £1864 respectively. The gain in life-years from RRSO equates to 29.2, 40.1, 62.1 and 80.3days at risk thresholds of 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% respectively. The results are not sensitive to treatment costs of RRSO/OC/cardiovascular events but are sensitive to utility-scores for RRSO. On PSA, 67%, 80%, 84%, 91% and 94% of simulations at risk thresholds of 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% respectively are cost-effective for RRSO. CONCLUSION: RRSO is highly cost-effective in postmenopausal women aged >50 with ≥5% lifetime OC-risk and increases life-expectancy by ≥29.2days. The results could have significant clinical implications given the improvements in risk prediction and falling costs of genotyping.
Authors: Stephanie Kearton; Karen Wills; Michael Bunting; Penny Blomfield; Paul A James; Jo Burke Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Andrew Lee; Xin Yang; Jonathan Tyrer; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Ryan; Nasim Mavaddat; Alex P Cunningham; Tim Carver; Stephanie Archer; Goska Leslie; Jatinder Kalsi; Faiza Gaba; Ranjit Manchanda; Simon Gayther; Susan J Ramus; Fiona M Walter; Marc Tischkowitz; Ian Jacobs; Usha Menon; Douglas F Easton; Paul Pharoah; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 5.941
Authors: Xin Yang; Goska Leslie; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Ryan; Maria Intermaggio; Andrew Lee; Jatinderpal K Kalsi; Jonathan Tyrer; Faiza Gaba; Ranjit Manchanda; Paul D P Pharoah; Simon A Gayther; Susan J Ramus; Ian Jacobs; Usha Menon; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Xin Yang; Honglin Song; Goska Leslie; Christoph Engel; Eric Hahnen; Bernd Auber; Judit Horváth; Karin Kast; Dieter Niederacher; Clare Turnbull; Richard Houlston; Helen Hanson; Chey Loveday; Jill S Dolinsky; Holly LaDuca; Susan J Ramus; Usha Menon; Adam N Rosenthal; Ian Jacobs; Simon A Gayther; Ed Dicks; Heli Nevanlinna; Kristiina Aittomäki; Liisa M Pelttari; Hans Ehrencrona; Åke Borg; Anders Kvist; Barbara Rivera; Thomas V O Hansen; Malene Djursby; Andrew Lee; Joe Dennis; David D Bowtell; Nadia Traficante; Orland Diez; Judith Balmaña; Stephen B Gruber; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; kConFab Investigators; Allan Jensen; Susanne K Kjær; Estrid Høgdall; Laurent Castéra; Judy Garber; Ramunas Janavicius; Ana Osorio; Lisa Golmard; Ana Vega; Fergus J Couch; Mark Robson; Jacek Gronwald; Susan M Domchek; Julie O Culver; Miguel de la Hoya; Douglas F Easton; William D Foulkes; Marc Tischkowitz; Alfons Meindl; Rita K Schmutzler; Paul D P Pharoah; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Katie E J Hann; Lindsay Fraser; Lucy Side; Sue Gessler; Jo Waller; Saskia C Sanderson; Madeleine Freeman; Ian Jacobs; Anne Lanceley Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 2.809