Ranjit Manchanda1, Shreeya Patel2, Antonis C Antoniou3, Ephrat Levy-Lahad4, Clare Turnbull5, D Gareth Evans6, John L Hopper7, Robert J Macinnis8, Usha Menon9, Ian Jacobs10, Rosa Legood11. 1. Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: r.manchanda@qmul.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 3. Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK. 4. Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel. 5. Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 6. Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 7. Centre for Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 8. Cancer Epidemiology & Intelligence Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 9. Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK. 10. University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney NSW. 11. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population-based BRCA1/BRCA2 testing has been found to be cost-effective compared with family history-based testing in Ashkenazi-Jewish women were >30 years old with 4 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparents. However, individuals may have 1, 2, or 3 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparents, and cost-effectiveness data are lacking at these lower BRCA prevalence estimates. We present an updated cost-effectiveness analysis of population BRCA1/BRCA2 testing for women with 1, 2, and 3 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparents. STUDY DESIGN: Decision analysis model. METHODS: Lifetime costs and effects of population and family history-based testing were compared with the use of a decision analysis model. 56% BRCA carriers are missed by family history criteria alone. Analyses were conducted for United Kingdom and United States populations. Model parameters were obtained from the Genetic Cancer Prediction through Population Screening trial and published literature. Model parameters and BRCA population prevalence for individuals with 3, 2, or 1 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent were adjusted for the relative frequency of BRCA mutations in the Ashkenazi-Jewish and general populations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for all Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent scenarios. Costs, along with outcomes, were discounted at 3.5%. The time horizon of the analysis is "life-time," and perspective is "payer." Probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated model uncertainty. RESULTS: Population testing for BRCA mutations is cost-saving in Ashkenazi-Jewish women with 2, 3, or 4 grandparents (22-33 days life-gained) in the United Kingdom and 1, 2, 3, or 4 grandparents (12-26 days life-gained) in the United States populations, respectively. It is also extremely cost-effective in women in the United Kingdom with just 1 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £863 per quality-adjusted life-years and 15 days life gained. Results show that population-testing remains cost-effective at the £20,000-30000 per quality-adjusted life-years and $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-years willingness-to-pay thresholds for all 4 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent scenarios, with ≥95% simulations found to be cost-effective on probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Population-testing remains cost-effective in the absence of reduction in breast cancer risk from oophorectomy and at lower risk-reducing mastectomy (13%) or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (20%) rates. CONCLUSION: Population testing for BRCA mutations with varying levels of Ashkenazi-Jewish ancestry is cost-effective in the United Kingdom and the United States. These results support population testing in Ashkenazi-Jewish women with 1-4 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent ancestry.
BACKGROUND: Population-based BRCA1/BRCA2 testing has been found to be cost-effective compared with family history-based testing in Ashkenazi-Jewish women were >30 years old with 4 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparents. However, individuals may have 1, 2, or 3 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparents, and cost-effectiveness data are lacking at these lower BRCA prevalence estimates. We present an updated cost-effectiveness analysis of population BRCA1/BRCA2 testing for women with 1, 2, and 3 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparents. STUDY DESIGN: Decision analysis model. METHODS: Lifetime costs and effects of population and family history-based testing were compared with the use of a decision analysis model. 56% BRCA carriers are missed by family history criteria alone. Analyses were conducted for United Kingdom and United States populations. Model parameters were obtained from the Genetic Cancer Prediction through Population Screening trial and published literature. Model parameters and BRCA population prevalence for individuals with 3, 2, or 1 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent were adjusted for the relative frequency of BRCA mutations in the Ashkenazi-Jewish and general populations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for all Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent scenarios. Costs, along with outcomes, were discounted at 3.5%. The time horizon of the analysis is "life-time," and perspective is "payer." Probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated model uncertainty. RESULTS: Population testing for BRCA mutations is cost-saving in Ashkenazi-Jewish women with 2, 3, or 4 grandparents (22-33 days life-gained) in the United Kingdom and 1, 2, 3, or 4 grandparents (12-26 days life-gained) in the United States populations, respectively. It is also extremely cost-effective in women in the United Kingdom with just 1 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £863 per quality-adjusted life-years and 15 days life gained. Results show that population-testing remains cost-effective at the £20,000-30000 per quality-adjusted life-years and $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-years willingness-to-pay thresholds for all 4 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent scenarios, with ≥95% simulations found to be cost-effective on probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Population-testing remains cost-effective in the absence of reduction in breast cancer risk from oophorectomy and at lower risk-reducing mastectomy (13%) or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (20%) rates. CONCLUSION: Population testing for BRCA mutations with varying levels of Ashkenazi-Jewish ancestry is cost-effective in the United Kingdom and the United States. These results support population testing in Ashkenazi-Jewish women with 1-4 Ashkenazi-Jewish grandparent ancestry.
Authors: Terri Patricia McVeigh; Deirdre Donnelly; Maryam Al Shehhi; Elizabeth A Jones; Alexandra Murray; Sarah Wedderburn; Mary Porteous; Sally Ann Lynch Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Karl Johnson; Katherine W Saylor; Isabella Guynn; Karen Hicklin; Jonathan S Berg; Kristen Hassmiller Lich Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Kelly M Morgan; Jada G Hamilton; Heather Symecko; Daniella Kamara; Colby Jenkins; Jenny Lester; Kelsey Spielman; Lydia E Pace; Camila Gabriel; Jeffrey D Levin; Prince Rainier Tejada; Anthony Braswell; Vanessa Marcell; Temima Wildman; Bryan Devolder; Robin Camhi Baum; Jeremy N Block; Yuri Fesko; Kylin Boehler; Victoria Howell; Jacob Heitler; Mark E Robson; Katherine L Nathanson; Nadine Tung; Beth Y Karlan; Susan M Domchek; Judy E Garber; Kenneth Offit Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Lei Zhang; Yining Bao; Moeen Riaz; Jane Tiller; Danny Liew; Xun Zhuang; David J Amor; Aamira Huq; Lara Petelin; Mark Nelson; Paul A James; Ingrid Winship; John J McNeil; Paul Lacaze Journal: Genet Med Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 8.822