Literature DB >> 27621393

Cost Effectiveness of the Oncotype DX DCIS Score for Guiding Treatment of Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Ann C Raldow1, David Sher1, Aileen B Chen1, Abram Recht1, Rinaa S Punglia1.   

Abstract

Purpose The Oncotype DX DCIS Score short form (DCIS Score) estimates the risk of an ipsilateral breast event (IBE) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery without adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). We determined the cost effectiveness of strategies using this test. Materials and Methods We developed a Markov model simulating 10-year outcomes for 60-year-old women eligible for the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E5194 study (cohort 1: low/intermediate-grade DCIS, ≤ 2.5 cm; cohort 2: high-grade DCIS, ≤ 1 cm) with each of five strategies: (1) no testing, no RT; (2) no testing, RT only for cohort 2; (3) no RT for low-grade DCIS, test for intermediate- and high-grade DCIS, RT for intermediate- or high-risk scores; (4) test all, RT for intermediate- or high-risk scores; and (5) no testing, RT for all. We used utilities and costs extracted from the literature and Medicare claims to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and examined the number of women needed to irradiate per IBE prevented. Results No strategy using the DCIS Score was cost effective. The most cost-effective strategy (RT for none or RT for all) was sensitive to small differences between the utilities of receiving or not receiving RT and remaining without recurrence. The numbers needed to irradiate per IBE prevented were 10.5, 9.1, 7.5, and 13.1 for strategies 2 to 5, respectively, relative to strategy 1. Conclusion Strategies using the DCIS Score lowered the proportion of women undergoing RT per IBE prevented. However, no strategy incorporating the DCIS Score was cost effective. The cost effectiveness of RT was exquisitely utility sensitive, highlighting the importance of engaging patient preferences in this decision. Physicians should discuss trade-offs associated with omitting or adding adjuvant RT with each patient to maximize quality-of-life outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27621393     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.8532

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  18 in total

1.  Cost Effectiveness of Gene Expression Profile Testing in Community Practice.

Authors:  Young Chandler; Clyde B Schechter; Jinani Jayasekera; Aimee Near; Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Charles E Phelps; G Thomas Ray; Tracy A Lieu; Scott Ramsey; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Current Therapeutic Approaches to DCIS.

Authors:  Kaleigh Doke; Shirley Butler; Melissa P Mitchell
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 2.673

3.  Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Quantitative Preoperative Breast MR Imaging Features Associated with Recurrence after Treatment.

Authors:  Jing Luo; Brian S Johnston; Averi E Kitsch; Daniel S Hippe; Larissa A Korde; Sara Javid; Janie M Lee; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Will oncotype DX DCIS testing guide therapy? A single-institution correlation of oncotype DX DCIS results with histopathologic findings and clinical management decisions.

Authors:  Chieh-Yu Lin; Kelly Mooney; Winward Choy; Soo-Ryum Yang; Keegan Barry-Holson; Kathleen Horst; Irene Wapnir; Kimberly Allison
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 5.  De-Escalation of Locoregional Therapy in Low-Risk Disease for DCIS and Early-Stage Invasive Cancer.

Authors:  E Shelley Hwang; Lawrence Solin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Molecular Changes Accompanying Disease Progression.

Authors:  Gemma M Wilson; Phuong Dinh; Nirmala Pathmanathan; J Dinny Graham
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2022-05-14       Impact factor: 2.698

Review 7.  Learning to distinguish progressive and non-progressive ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Anna K Casasent; Mathilde M Almekinders; Charlotta Mulder; Proteeti Bhattacharjee; Deborah Collyar; Alastair M Thompson; Jos Jonkers; Esther H Lips; Jacco van Rheenen; E Shelley Hwang; Serena Nik-Zainal; Nicholas E Navin; Jelle Wesseling
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 69.800

8.  Androgen and oestrogen receptors as potential prognostic markers for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with surgery and radiotherapy.

Authors:  Sara Ravaioli; Maria Maddalena Tumedei; Flavia Foca; Roberta Maltoni; Andrea Rocca; Ilaria Massa; Elisabetta Pietri; Sara Bravaccini
Journal:  Int J Exp Pathol       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 9.  Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Biomarkers in a Precision Medicine Era: Current and Future Molecular-Based Testing.

Authors:  Kevin Shee; Kristen E Muller; Jonathan Marotti; Todd W Miller; Wendy A Wells; Gregory J Tsongalis
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 4.307

Review 10.  Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Prevention, Screening, and Treatment Interventions.

Authors:  Jinani Jayasekera; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.