Haitham W Tuffaha1,2, Andrew Mitchell3, Robyn L Ward4, Luke Connelly5, James R G Butler6, Sarah Norris7, Paul A Scuffham8,9. 1. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. haitham.tuffaha@griffith.edu.au. 2. Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia. haitham.tuffaha@griffith.edu.au. 3. Pharmaceutical Evaluation Branch/Medical Specialist Services Branch, Australian Government Department of Health, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 4. Office of DVCR, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, Queensland. 5. Centre for the Business and Economics of Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 6. Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 7. Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 8. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. 9. Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BRCA testing in women with breast cancer, and cascade testing in family members of BRCA mutation carriers. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a cohort Markov model from a health-payer perspective. The model estimated the long-term benefits and costs of testing women with breast cancer who had at least a 10% pretest BRCA mutation probability, and the cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives of women who test positive. RESULTS: Compared with no testing, BRCA testing of affected women resulted in an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of AU$18,900 (incremental cost AU$1,880; incremental QALY gain 0.10) with reductions of 0.04 breast and 0.01 ovarian cancer events. Testing affected women and cascade testing of family members resulted in an incremental cost per QALY gained of AU$9,500 compared with testing affected women only (incremental cost AU$665; incremental QALY gain 0.07) with additional reductions of 0.06 breast and 0.01 ovarian cancer events. CONCLUSION: BRCA testing in women with breast cancer is cost-effective and is associated with reduced risk of cancer and improved survival. Extending testing to cover family members of affected women who test positive improves cost-effectiveness beyond restricting testing to affected women only.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BRCA testing in women with breast cancer, and cascade testing in family members of BRCA mutation carriers. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a cohort Markov model from a health-payer perspective. The model estimated the long-term benefits and costs of testing women with breast cancer who had at least a 10% pretest BRCA mutation probability, and the cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives of women who test positive. RESULTS: Compared with no testing, BRCA testing of affected women resulted in an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of AU$18,900 (incremental cost AU$1,880; incremental QALY gain 0.10) with reductions of 0.04 breast and 0.01 ovarian cancer events. Testing affected women and cascade testing of family members resulted in an incremental cost per QALY gained of AU$9,500 compared with testing affected women only (incremental cost AU$665; incremental QALY gain 0.07) with additional reductions of 0.06 breast and 0.01 ovarian cancer events. CONCLUSION: BRCA testing in women with breast cancer is cost-effective and is associated with reduced risk of cancer and improved survival. Extending testing to cover family members of affected women who test positive improves cost-effectiveness beyond restricting testing to affected women only.
Entities:
Keywords:
BRCA testing; breast cancer; cascade testing; cost-effectiveness; ovarian cancer
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: Claire C Conley; Jessica N Rivera Rivera; Eida M Castro-Figueroa; Laura Moreno; Julie Dutil; Jennifer D García; Charité Ricker; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Hatem Soliman; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 3.626
Authors: Michael P Kolinsky; Karen Y Niederhoffer; Edmond M Kwan; Sebastien J Hotte; Zineb Hamilou; Steven M Yip; Kim N Chi; Alexander W Wyatt; Fred Saad Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Beth N Peshkin; Mary Kate Ladd; Claudine Isaacs; Hannah Segal; Aryana Jacobs; Kathryn L Taylor; Kristi D Graves; Suzanne C O'Neill; Marc D Schwartz Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Renee Cowan; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Nisha Pradhan; Maya Yasukawa; Qin C Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Robert A Soslow; Angela G Arnold; Magan Trottier; Amanda Catchings; Kara Long Roche; Ginger Gardner; Mark Robson; Nadeem R Abu Rustum; Carol Aghajanian; Karen Cadoo Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Kevin Hughes; Rakesh Patel; Barry Rosen; Gia Compagnoni; Paul Baron; Rache Simmons; Linda Ann Smith; Ian Grady; Michael Kinney; Cynara Coomer; Karen Barbosa; Dennis R Holmes; Eric Brown; Linsey Gold; Patricia Clark; Lee Riley; Samuel Lyons; Antonio Ruiz; Sadia Kahn; Heather MacDonald; Lisa Curcio; Mary Kay Hardwick; Shan Yang; Ed D Esplin; Robert L Nussbaum Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sukh Makhnoon; Grace Tran; Brooke Levin; Kristin D Mattie; Brian Dreyer; Robert J Volk; Generosa Grana; Banu K Arun; Susan K Peterson Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 6.860