Cost-Effectiveness of Unselected Multigene Germline and Somatic Genetic Testing for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.


Journal

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN
ISSN: 1540-1413
Titre abrégé: J Natl Compr Canc Netw
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101162515

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 30 09 2022
accepted: 18 12 2023
medline: 13 6 2024
pubmed: 13 6 2024
entrez: 12 6 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Parallel panel germline and somatic genetic testing of all patients with ovarian cancer (OC) can identify more pathogenic variants (PVs) that would benefit from PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy, and allow for precision prevention in unaffected relatives with PVs. In this study, we estimate the cost-effectiveness and population impact of parallel panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy in the United Kingdom and the United States compared with clinical criteria/family history (FH)-based germline BRCA testing. We also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone. Microsimulation cost-effectiveness modeling using data from 2,391 (UK: n=1,483; US: n=908) unselected, population-based patients with OC was used to compare lifetime costs and effects of panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all OC cases (with PARPi therapy) (strategy A) versus clinical criteria/FH-based germline BRCA testing (strategy B). Unaffected relatives with germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs identified through cascade testing underwent appropriate OC and breast cancer (BC) risk-reduction interventions. We also compared the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) versus strategy B. Unaffected relatives with PVs could undergo risk-reducing interventions. Lifetime horizon with payer/societal perspectives, along with probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses, are presented. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were compared with £30,000/QALY (UK) and $100,000/QALY (US) thresholds. OC incidence, BC incidence, and prevented deaths were estimated. Compared with clinical criteria/FH-based BRCA testing, BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 germline testing and BRCA1/BRCA2 somatic testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy had a UK ICER of £51,175/QALY (payer perspective) and £50,202/QALY (societal perspective) and a US ICER of $175,232/QALY (payer perspective) and $174,667/QALY (societal perspective), above UK/NICE and US cost-effectiveness thresholds in the base case. However, strategy A becomes cost-effective if PARPi costs decrease by 45% to 46% or if overall survival with PARPi reaches a hazard ratio of 0.28. Unselected panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) is cost-effective, with payer-perspective ICERs of £11,291/QALY or $68,808/QALY and societal-perspective ICERs of £6,923/QALY or $65,786/QALY. One year's testing could prevent 209 UK BC/OC cases and 192 deaths, and 560 US BC/OC cases and 460 deaths. Unselected panel germline and somatic BRCA testing can become cost-effective, with a 45% to 46% reduction in PARPi costs. Regarding germline testing, unselected panel germline testing is highly cost-effective and should replace BRCA testing alone.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Parallel panel germline and somatic genetic testing of all patients with ovarian cancer (OC) can identify more pathogenic variants (PVs) that would benefit from PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy, and allow for precision prevention in unaffected relatives with PVs. In this study, we estimate the cost-effectiveness and population impact of parallel panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy in the United Kingdom and the United States compared with clinical criteria/family history (FH)-based germline BRCA testing. We also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone.
METHODS METHODS
Microsimulation cost-effectiveness modeling using data from 2,391 (UK: n=1,483; US: n=908) unselected, population-based patients with OC was used to compare lifetime costs and effects of panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all OC cases (with PARPi therapy) (strategy A) versus clinical criteria/FH-based germline BRCA testing (strategy B). Unaffected relatives with germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs identified through cascade testing underwent appropriate OC and breast cancer (BC) risk-reduction interventions. We also compared the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) versus strategy B. Unaffected relatives with PVs could undergo risk-reducing interventions. Lifetime horizon with payer/societal perspectives, along with probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses, are presented. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were compared with £30,000/QALY (UK) and $100,000/QALY (US) thresholds. OC incidence, BC incidence, and prevented deaths were estimated.
RESULTS RESULTS
Compared with clinical criteria/FH-based BRCA testing, BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 germline testing and BRCA1/BRCA2 somatic testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy had a UK ICER of £51,175/QALY (payer perspective) and £50,202/QALY (societal perspective) and a US ICER of $175,232/QALY (payer perspective) and $174,667/QALY (societal perspective), above UK/NICE and US cost-effectiveness thresholds in the base case. However, strategy A becomes cost-effective if PARPi costs decrease by 45% to 46% or if overall survival with PARPi reaches a hazard ratio of 0.28. Unselected panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) is cost-effective, with payer-perspective ICERs of £11,291/QALY or $68,808/QALY and societal-perspective ICERs of £6,923/QALY or $65,786/QALY. One year's testing could prevent 209 UK BC/OC cases and 192 deaths, and 560 US BC/OC cases and 460 deaths.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Unselected panel germline and somatic BRCA testing can become cost-effective, with a 45% to 46% reduction in PARPi costs. Regarding germline testing, unselected panel germline testing is highly cost-effective and should replace BRCA testing alone.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38866043
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.7331
pii: e237331
doi:
pii:

Substances chimiques

BRCA2 Protein 0
BRCA1 Protein 0
BRCA2 protein, human 0
BRCA1 protein, human 0
Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors 0
RAD51D protein, human 0
BRIP1 protein, human EC 3.6.4.13
RNA Helicases EC 3.6.4.13
Fanconi Anemia Complementation Group Proteins 0
DNA-Binding Proteins 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Auteurs

Ranjit Manchanda (R)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
2Department of Gynecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK.
3Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
4MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
5Department of Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Li Sun (L)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
3Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Monika Sobocan (M)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
2Department of Gynecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK.
6Division of Gynecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.

Isabel V Rodriguez (IV)

7Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Xia Wei (X)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
3Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Ashwin Kalra (A)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
2Department of Gynecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK.

Samuel Oxley (S)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
2Department of Gynecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK.

Michail Sideris (M)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
2Department of Gynecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK.

Caitlin T Fierheller (CT)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
2Department of Gynecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK.

Robert D Morgan (RD)

8Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Dhivya Chandrasekaran (D)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Kelly Rust (K)

9Institute of Genetics and Cancer, Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Pavlina Spiliopoulou (P)

10School of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Rowan E Miller (RE)

11Department of Medical Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Shanthini M Crusz (SM)

11Department of Medical Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Michelle Lockley (M)

12Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.

Naveena Singh (N)

13Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Asma Faruqi (A)

13Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Laura Casey (L)

13Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Elly Brockbank (E)

2Department of Gynecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK.

Saurabh Phadnis (S)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
2Department of Gynecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK.

Tina Mills-Baldock (T)

14Department of Medical Oncology, Barking, Havering, and Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex, UK.

Fatima El-Khouly (F)

14Department of Medical Oncology, Barking, Havering, and Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex, UK.

Lucy A Jenkins (LA)

15North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.

Andrew Wallace (A)

16Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution, Infection, and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Munaza Ahmed (M)

15North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.

Ajith Kumar (A)

15North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.

Elizabeth M Swisher (EM)

7Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Charlie Gourley (C)

9Institute of Genetics and Cancer, Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Barbara M Norquist (BM)

7Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

D Gareth Evans (DG)

16Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution, Infection, and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Rosa Legood (R)

1Wolfson Institute of Population Health, CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
3Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH