Literature DB >> 30746499

The Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Norway.

Lars Asphaug1, Hans Olav Melberg1.   

Abstract

Background. Expansion of routine genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer from conventional BRCA testing to a multigene test could improve diagnostic yield and increase the opportunity for cancer prevention in both identified carriers and their relatives. We use an economic decision model to assess whether the current knowledge on non-BRCA mutation prevalence, cancer risk, and patient preferences justifies switching to a multigene panel for testing of early-onset breast cancer patients. Methods. We evaluated routine testing by BRCA testing, a 7-gene panel, and a 14-gene panel using individual-level simulations of annual health state transitions over a lifetime perspective. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence is reduced and posttreatment survival is improved when high-risk mutations are detected and risk-reducing treatment offered. Most model inputs were synthesized from published literature. Intermediate health outcomes included breast and ovarian cancer incidence rates, along with organ-specific cancer mortality. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were health sector costs and quality-adjusted life years. Results. Intermediate health outcomes improved by testing with multigene panels. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $77,000, a 7-gene panel test with five non-BRCA genes was the optimal strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $53,310 per quality-adjusted life year compared to BRCA-only testing. Limitations. Unable to stratify carriers to specific mutations within genes, we can only make predictions on the gene level, with combined risk estimates for known variants. As mutation prevalence is the absolute upper bound of returns to more expansive testing, the rarity of modelled mutations makes analysis outcomes sensitive to model implementation. Conclusions. A 7-gene panel to diagnose hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in early-onset breast cancer patients can be a cost-effective alternative to current BRCA-only testing in Norway.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cost-effectiveness; diagosis; genetic testing; individual-level simulation

Year:  2019        PMID: 30746499      PMCID: PMC6360477          DOI: 10.1177/2381468318821103

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  MDM Policy Pract        ISSN: 2381-4683


  10 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders.

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

Review 2.  Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Providing Evidence of Predisposition Genes.

Authors:  Sidrah Shah; Alison Cheung; Mikolaj Kutka; Matin Sheriff; Stergios Boussios
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 4.614

Review 3.  The role of genomics in global cancer prevention.

Authors:  Ophira Ginsburg; Paul Brennan; Patricia Ashton-Prolla; Anna Cantor; Daniela Mariosa
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 4.  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

5.  Guidance for the Harmonisation and Improvement of Economic Evaluations of Personalised Medicine.

Authors:  Heleen Vellekoop; Simone Huygens; Matthijs Versteegh; László Szilberhorn; Tamás Zelei; Balázs Nagy; Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova; Apostolos Tsiachristas; Sarah Wordsworth; Maureen Rutten-van Mölken
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Importance of multigene panel test in patients with consanguineous marriage and family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Vahit Ozmen; Ahmet Okay Caglayan; Kanay Yararbas; Cetin Ordu; Fatma Aktepe; Tolga Ozmen; Ahmet Serkan Ilgun; Gursel Soybir; Gul Alco; Georgios N Tsaousis; Eirini Papadopoulou; Konstantinos Agiannitopoulos; Georgia Pepe; Stavroula Kampouri; George Nasioulas; Efe Sezgin; Atilla Soran
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 7.  Uptake Rates of Risk-Reducing Surgeries for Women at Increased Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Applied to Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Scoping Systematic Review.

Authors:  Julia Simões Corrêa Galendi; Sibylle Kautz-Freimuth; Stephanie Stock; Dirk Müller
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 6.639

8.  Cost-Effectiveness of Genetic Testing for All Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in China.

Authors:  Li Sun; Bin Cui; Xia Wei; Zia Sadique; Li Yang; Ranjit Manchanda; Rosa Legood
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  What can we learn from more than 1,000 Brazilian patients at risk of hereditary cancer?

Authors:  Ana Carolina Rathsam Leite; Daniele Assad Suzuki; Allan Anderson Lima Pereira; Natalia Polidorio Machado; Romualdo Barroso-Sousa; Tatiana Strava Correa; Fernanda Cesar Moura; Igor Alexandre Protzner Morbeck; Brenda Pires Gumz; Luiza Dib Batista Bugiato Faria; Gustavo Dos Santos Fernandes; Renata Lazari Sandoval
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-05       Impact factor: 5.738

10.  Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Annie Wang; Jessica N Everett; Jennifer Chun; Cindy Cen; Diane M Simeone; Freya Schnabel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.