PURPOSE: The advent of multigene panels has increased genetic testing options for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We designed a decision model to compare costs and probabilities of identifying a deleterious mutation or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) using different genetic testing strategies. METHODS: A decision model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of two testing strategies for women with EOC: multigene testing (MGT) versus single-gene testing for BRCA1/2. Outcomes were mean cost and number of deleterious mutations and VUSs identified. Model inputs were obtained from published genetic testing data in EOC. One-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: No family history model: MGT cost $1,160 more on average than BRCA1/2 testing and identified an additional 3.8 deleterious mutations for every 100 women tested. For each additional deleterious mutation identified, MGT cost $30,812 and identified 5.4 additional VUSs. Family history model: MGT cost $654 more on average and identified an additional 7.0 deleterious mutations for every 100 women tested. For each additional deleterious mutation identified, MGT cost $9,909 and identified 2.6 additional VUSs. CONCLUSION: MGT was associated with a higher additional cost per deleterious mutation identified and a higher ratio of VUS burden to actionable information in women with no family history as compared with women with a family history. Family history should be considered when determining an initial genetic testing platform in women with EOC.
PURPOSE: The advent of multigene panels has increased genetic testing options for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We designed a decision model to compare costs and probabilities of identifying a deleterious mutation or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) using different genetic testing strategies. METHODS: A decision model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of two testing strategies for women with EOC: multigene testing (MGT) versus single-gene testing for BRCA1/2. Outcomes were mean cost and number of deleterious mutations and VUSs identified. Model inputs were obtained from published genetic testing data in EOC. One-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: No family history model: MGT cost $1,160 more on average than BRCA1/2 testing and identified an additional 3.8 deleterious mutations for every 100 women tested. For each additional deleterious mutation identified, MGT cost $30,812 and identified 5.4 additional VUSs. Family history model: MGT cost $654 more on average and identified an additional 7.0 deleterious mutations for every 100 women tested. For each additional deleterious mutation identified, MGT cost $9,909 and identified 2.6 additional VUSs. CONCLUSION: MGT was associated with a higher additional cost per deleterious mutation identified and a higher ratio of VUS burden to actionable information in women with no family history as compared with women with a family history. Family history should be considered when determining an initial genetic testing platform in women with EOC.