Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Genetic Testing and Tailored First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.
Antineoplastic Agents
/ economics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Costs
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors
/ drug therapy
Genetic Testing
/ economics
Humans
Imatinib Mesylate
/ economics
Markov Chains
Neoplasm Metastasis
Neoplasm Staging
Pharmacogenetics
/ methods
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-kit
/ genetics
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2020
01 09 2020
Historique:
entrez:
28
9
2020
pubmed:
29
9
2020
medline:
7
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is frequently driven by oncogenic KIT variations. Imatinib targeting of KIT marked a new era in GIST treatment and ushered in precision oncological treatment for all solid malignant neoplasms. However, studies on the molecular biological traits of GIST have found that tumors respond differentially to imatinib dosage based on the KIT exon with variation. Despite this knowledge, few patients undergo genetic testing at diagnosis, and empirical imatinib therapy remains routine. Barriers to genetic profiling include concerns about the cost and utility of testing. To determine whether targeted gene testing (TGT) is a cost-effective diagnostic for patients with metastatic GIST from the US payer perspective. This economic evaluation developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of TGT and tailored first-line therapy compared with empirical imatinib therapy among patients with a new diagnosis of metastatic GIST. The main health outcome, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were obtained from the literature, and transitional probabilities were modeled from disease progression and survival estimates from randomized clinical trials of patients with metastatic GIST. Data analyses were conducted October 2019 to January 2020. TGT and tailored first-line therapy. The primary outcome was QALYs and cost. Cost-effectiveness was defined using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio less than $100 000/QALY considered cost-effective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model stability. Therapy directed by TGT was associated with an increase of 0.10 QALYs at a cost of $9513 compared with the empirical imatinib approach, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $92 100. These findings were sensitive to the costs of TGT, drugs, and health utility model inputs. Therapy directed by TGT remained cost-effective for genetic testing costs up to $3730. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that TGT-directed therapy was considered cost-effective 70% of the time. These findings suggest that using genetic testing to match treatment of KIT variations to imatinib dosing is a cost-effective approach compared with empirical imatinib.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32986105
pii: 2770875
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13565
pmc: PMC7522695
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Imatinib Mesylate
8A1O1M485B
KIT protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-kit
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2013565Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K08 CA168999
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA121938
Pays : United States
Organisme : NLM NIH HHS
ID : T15 LM011271
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : TL1 TR001443
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA226803
Pays : United States
Organisme : FDA HHS
ID : R01 FD006334
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA023100
Pays : United States
Références
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 2;3(3):e200643
pubmed: 32154886
Lancet. 2006 Oct 14;368(9544):1329-38
pubmed: 17046465
Eur J Cancer. 2008 May;44(7):972-7
pubmed: 18372169
J Med Econ. 2015 Mar;18(3):241-8
pubmed: 25422992
JAMA. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1093-103
pubmed: 27623463
J Transl Med. 2016 Dec 14;14(1):339
pubmed: 27974047
Genet Med. 2018 Oct;20(10):1122-1130
pubmed: 29446766
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jul;96(29):e7445
pubmed: 28723754
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jan;52:201-8
pubmed: 26699729
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Jun;13(6):352-355
pubmed: 28445102
J Med Econ. 2019 Nov;22(11):1113-1118
pubmed: 31074658
Lung Cancer. 2017 May;107:22-35
pubmed: 27316470
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Nov 10;34(32):3886-3891
pubmed: 27551113
Virchows Arch. 2010 Feb;456(2):111-27
pubmed: 20165865
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Jan;24(1):298-302
pubmed: 25277795
Lancet. 2004 Sep 25-Oct 1;364(9440):1127-34
pubmed: 15451219
Cancer. 2015 May 1;121(9):1405-13
pubmed: 25641662
Virchows Arch. 2018 Feb;472(2):221-229
pubmed: 29308530
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Nov 20;26(33):5352-9
pubmed: 18955458
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2008 Oct;47(10):853-9
pubmed: 18615679
Eur J Cancer. 2006 May;42(8):1093-103
pubmed: 16624552
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 1;28(7):1247-53
pubmed: 20124181
Mol Diagn Ther. 2015 Jun;19(3):169-77
pubmed: 25926090
J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 10;37(14):1209-1216
pubmed: 30897037
Sci Transl Med. 2017 Nov 1;9(414):
pubmed: 29093181
Health Technol Assess. 2011 Jun;15(25):1-178
pubmed: 21689502
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Sep 1;171(9):855-862
pubmed: 28759686
Oncol Res Treat. 2016;39(12):811-816
pubmed: 27889785
Lancet. 2013 Jan 26;381(9863):295-302
pubmed: 23177515
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Jul;9(25):1-142
pubmed: 15985189
Nat Rev Cancer. 2011 Nov 17;11(12):865-78
pubmed: 22089421
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Jul;142(1):144-149
pubmed: 27106017
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Nov;51(16):2423-33
pubmed: 26248685
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2015 Mar;54(3):177-84
pubmed: 25427437
N Engl J Med. 2002 Aug 15;347(7):472-80
pubmed: 12181401
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug 20;26(24):3995-4000
pubmed: 18711190
J Pathol. 2016 Mar;238(4):543-9
pubmed: 26606880
Lancet. 2007 May 19;369(9574):1731-41
pubmed: 17512858
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 May;16(5):536-563
pubmed: 29752328