Cost evaluation of the Merlin assay for predicting melanoma sentinel lymph node biopsy metastasis.
Journal
International journal of dermatology
ISSN: 1365-4632
Titre abrégé: Int J Dermatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0243704
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
revised:
28
10
2022
received:
17
07
2022
accepted:
05
11
2022
pubmed:
29
11
2022
medline:
21
12
2022
entrez:
28
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Merlin assay for melanoma-risk assessment has become commercially available to reduce the rate of unnecessary sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in SLNB-eligible patients with cutaneous melanoma. Merlin low-risk patients are recommended to undergo wide local excision (WLE) of the primary tumor, whereas Merlin high-risk patients are recommended to undergo both SLNB and WLE. Here, we compared the cost of a Merlin testing strategy to that of a no-testing strategy (usual care) before prescribing SLNB. We identified T1 and T2 patients who underwent WLE and SLNB but not completion lymph node dissection between 2007 and 2018. Controls were T1 patients who only underwent WLE. Costs for WLE and SLNB were calculated by converting institutional cost data to standardized Medicare reimbursement rates. We then developed a decision tree to compare the cost of Merlin testing to that of a no-testing strategy (usual care). The average standardized cost of WLE was $2066, whereas the cost of WLE and SLNB was $11,976 based on Medicare rates. At a cost below $7350 for T1b melanoma and $4600 for T1b to T2 melanoma, Merlin testing was cost-saving compared to a no-testing strategy (usual care), assuming Medicare reimbursement rates. Merlin testing for T1b and T2 melanoma is potentially cost saving depending on the cost of the molecular assay and SLNB reimbursement rates. In addition to being cost saving, Merlin is expected to improve health-related quality of life.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Merlin assay for melanoma-risk assessment has become commercially available to reduce the rate of unnecessary sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in SLNB-eligible patients with cutaneous melanoma. Merlin low-risk patients are recommended to undergo wide local excision (WLE) of the primary tumor, whereas Merlin high-risk patients are recommended to undergo both SLNB and WLE. Here, we compared the cost of a Merlin testing strategy to that of a no-testing strategy (usual care) before prescribing SLNB.
METHODS
METHODS
We identified T1 and T2 patients who underwent WLE and SLNB but not completion lymph node dissection between 2007 and 2018. Controls were T1 patients who only underwent WLE. Costs for WLE and SLNB were calculated by converting institutional cost data to standardized Medicare reimbursement rates. We then developed a decision tree to compare the cost of Merlin testing to that of a no-testing strategy (usual care).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The average standardized cost of WLE was $2066, whereas the cost of WLE and SLNB was $11,976 based on Medicare rates. At a cost below $7350 for T1b melanoma and $4600 for T1b to T2 melanoma, Merlin testing was cost-saving compared to a no-testing strategy (usual care), assuming Medicare reimbursement rates.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Merlin testing for T1b and T2 melanoma is potentially cost saving depending on the cost of the molecular assay and SLNB reimbursement rates. In addition to being cost saving, Merlin is expected to improve health-related quality of life.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36440797
doi: 10.1111/ijd.16515
pmc: PMC10098626
mid: NIHMS1890652
doi:
Substances chimiques
Neurofibromin 2
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
56-61Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K08 CA215105
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K08 CA215105
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Dermatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the International Society of Dermatology.
Références
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021 Apr 1;19(4):364-376
pubmed: 33845460
Br J Dermatol. 2021 May;184(5):944-951
pubmed: 32844403
J Surg Oncol. 2022 Mar;125(3):498-508
pubmed: 34672372
Int J Dermatol. 2022 Jul;61(7):848-854
pubmed: 35100440
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8;376(23):2211-2222
pubmed: 28591523
Int J Dermatol. 2021 Jul;60(7):851-856
pubmed: 33914348
Eur J Cancer. 2020 Nov;140:11-18
pubmed: 33032086
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jun 12;17(1):396
pubmed: 28606088
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Nov;67(6):472-492
pubmed: 29028110
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2020 Oct;4(5):586-587
pubmed: 32838203
JCO Precis Oncol. 2020;4:319-334
pubmed: 32405608
Lancet. 2022 Apr 30;399(10336):1718-1729
pubmed: 35367007
Ann Plast Surg. 2017 Nov;79(5):509-515
pubmed: 28650410
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022 Feb;48(2):320-325
pubmed: 34794843
Surgery. 2003 Oct;134(4):542-7; discussion 547-8
pubmed: 14605613
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 7;384(1):72-79
pubmed: 33406334
Mod Pathol. 2022 Nov;35(11):1509-1514
pubmed: 35654998