L Masucci1, S Torres2, A Eisen2,3, M Trudeau2,3, I Tyono2, H Saunders1, K W Chan2,3,4, W Isaranuwatchai1,4,5. 1. Centre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 2. Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 3. Cancer Care Ontario, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 4. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 5. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
Background: For women with lymph node (ln)-positive, estrogen receptor-positive, and her2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-negative breast cancer (bca), current guidelines recommend treatment with both hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. The 21-gene Recurrence Score (rs) assay might be helpful in selecting patients with bca who can be spared chemotherapy when they have 1-3 positive lns and a lower risk of recurrence. In the present study, we performed a cost-utility analysis comparing use of the 21-gene rs assay with current practice from the perspective of a Canadian health care payer. Methods: A Markov model was developed to determine costs and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) over a patient's lifetime. Patient outcomes in both study groups were examined based on published clinical trials. Costs were derived primarily from published Canadian sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually, and costs are reported in 2016 Canadian dollars. A probabilistic analysis was used, and the model parameters were varied in a sensitivity analysis. Results: The results indicate that use of the 21-gene rs assay was less costly ($432 less) and more effective (0.22 qalys) than current practice. The probabilistic analysis revealed that 70% of the 10,000 simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in the southeast quadrant. The results were sensitive to the probability of a low rs and to the probability of receiving chemotherapy in the low-risk rs category and in current practice. Conclusions: Use of the 21-gene rs assay could be a cost-effective strategy for Ontario patients with estrogen receptor-positive, her2-negative early bca and 1-3 positive lns. 2019 Multimed Inc.
Background: For women with lymph node (ln)-positive, estrogen receptor-positive, and her2 (humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2)-negative breast cancer (bca), current guidelines recommend treatment with both hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. The 21-gene Recurrence Score (rs) assay might be helpful in selecting patients with bca who can be spared chemotherapy when they have 1-3 positive lns and a lower risk of recurrence. In the present study, we performed a cost-utility analysis comparing use of the 21-gene rs assay with current practice from the perspective of a Canadian health care payer. Methods: A Markov model was developed to determine costs and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) over a patient's lifetime. Patient outcomes in both study groups were examined based on published clinical trials. Costs were derived primarily from published Canadian sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually, and costs are reported in 2016 Canadian dollars. A probabilistic analysis was used, and the model parameters were varied in a sensitivity analysis. Results: The results indicate that use of the 21-gene rs assay was less costly ($432 less) and more effective (0.22 qalys) than current practice. The probabilistic analysis revealed that 70% of the 10,000 simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in the southeast quadrant. The results were sensitive to the probability of a low rs and to the probability of receiving chemotherapy in the low-risk rs category and in current practice. Conclusions: Use of the 21-gene rs assay could be a cost-effective strategy for Ontario patients with estrogen receptor-positive, her2-negative early bca and 1-3 positive lns. 2019 Multimed Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
21-gene assay; Cost-effectiveness; breast cancer; chemotherapy
Authors: Marc L Citron; Donald A Berry; Constance Cirrincione; Clifford Hudis; Eric P Winer; William J Gradishar; Nancy E Davidson; Silvana Martino; Robert Livingston; James N Ingle; Edith A Perez; John Carpenter; David Hurd; James F Holland; Barbara L Smith; Carolyn I Sartor; Eleanor H Leung; Jeffrey Abrams; Richard L Schilsky; Hyman B Muss; Larry Norton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claire de Oliveira; Karen E Bremner; Reka Pataky; Nadia Gunraj; Kelvin Chan; Stuart Peacock; Murray D Krahn Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2013-01-16
Authors: Valentina I Petkov; Dave P Miller; Nadia Howlader; Nathan Gliner; Will Howe; Nicola Schussler; Kathleen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Rosemary Cress; Dennis Deapen; Sally L Glaser; Brenda Y Hernandez; Charles F Lynch; Lloyd Mueller; Ann G Schwartz; Stephen M Schwartz; Antoinette Stroup; Carol Sweeney; Thomas C Tucker; Kevin C Ward; Charles Wiggins; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lynne Penberthy; Steven Shak Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2016-06-08
Authors: Henry L Gomez; Juan E Bargallo-Rocha; Roberto J Billinghurst; Aníbal R Núñez De Pierro; Federico A Coló; Lisandro L B Gil; Carola Allemand; Ignacio L McLean; Mauricio Lema-Medina; Fernando Herazo-Maya; Francisco J Terrier; Raquel G Cwilich; Mauricio Leon; Silvia G Falcon; Roberto E Castaño; Sergio C Oliveira; Debbie M Jakubowski; Calvin Chao Journal: JCO Glob Oncol Date: 2021-08
Authors: Vladislav Berdunov; Steve Millen; Andrew Paramore; Jane Griffin; Sarah Reynia; Nina Fryer; Rebecca Brown; Louise Longworth Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2022-09-19