Assessment of the Value of Tumor Variation Profiling Perceived by Patients With Cancer

How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify how value is defined in studies that focus on the value of molecular testing in cancer and the extent to which broadening the conceptualisation of value in healthcare has been applied in the molecular testing literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance. Medline, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in August 2023. Articles were eligible if they reported costs relative to outcomes, novel costs, or novel outcomes of molecular testing in cancer. Results were synthesised and qualitative content analysis was performed with deductive and inductive frameworks.

RESULTS

Ninety-one articles were included in the review. The majority (75/91) were conventional economic analyses (comparative economic evaluations and budget impact assessments) and undertaken from a healthcare system perspective (38/91). Clinical outcomes dominate the assessment of value (61/91), with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) the most common outcome measure (45/91). Other definitions of value were diverse (e.g. psychological impact, access to trials), inconsistent, and largely not in keeping with evolving guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

Broader concepts of value were not commonly described in the molecular testing literature focusing on cancer. Conventional approaches to measuring the health costs and outcomes of molecular testing in cancer prevail with little focus on non-clinical elements of value. There are emerging reports of non-clinical outcomes of testing information, particularly psychological consequences. Intrinsic attributes of the testing process and preferences of those who receive testing information may determine the realised societal value of molecular testing and highlight challenges to implementing such a value framework.

Willingness to pay for an mRNA-based anti-cancer treatment: results from a contingent valuation study in Israel

BACKGROUND

mRNA technology is currently being investigated for a range of oncology indications. We assessed the willingness to pay (WTP) of the general population in Israel for a hypothetical novel mRNA-based treatment for oncology indications.

METHODS

We used a contingent valuation methodology to elicit WTP using a web-based questionnaire. A sample of adult participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which an mRNA-based intervention increased the likelihood of a cure for various cancer types from 20% to 40% (half of the sample), or 60% (the other half of the sample).

RESULTS

531 respondents completed the questionnaire. The mean, median and mode WTP for the proposed hypothetical treatment in both scenarios were ILS65,000 (± ILS114,000), ILS20,000 and ILS50,000, respectively (1USD = 3.4ILS). The WTP was skewed towards zero, and 9.6% of the respondents were not willing to pay any amount. WTP higher amounts was significantly associated with higher income (p < 0.01), self-reported good health (p < 0.05), supplementary health insurance (p < 0.05), Jews compared to other populations (p < 0.01), interest in technology (p < 0.001) and a tendency to adopt medical innovations (p < 0.001). No statistical difference between the 40% vs. the 60% potential cure scenarios was found. Logistic and OLS regressions indicated that age, religion, income, and interest in adopting medical innovations were the best predictors of respondents' WTP.

CONCLUSION

Despite the scientific breakthroughs in oncology treatment over the last few decades, many types of cancer are still incurable. Given the expected development of innovative mRNA-based treatments for cancer, these results should inform policymakers, the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders on the future coverage and reimbursement of these technologies incorporating patients' and societal views. To date, WTP considerations have not been given much weight in prioritization of drug reimbursement processes, neither in Israel nor in other countries. As a pioneer in adoption of the mRNA technology, Israel can also lead the incorporation of WTP considerations in this field.

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication.

AREAS COVERED

We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000.

EXPERT OPINION

The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.

The patients view on genetics and functional imaging for precision medicine: a willingness-to-pay analysis

Purpose: Willingness-to-pay (WTP) analyses can support allocation processes considering the patients preferences in personalized medicine. However, genetic testing especially might imply ethical concerns that have to be considered. Methods: A WTP questionnaire was designed to compare preferences for imaging and genetic testing in cancer patients and to evaluate potential ethical concerns. Results: Comparing the options of imaging and genetics showed comparable WTP values. Ethical concerns about genetic testing seemed to be minor. Treatment success was the top priority irrespective of the diagnostic modality. In general, the majority of patients considered personalized medicine to be beneficial. Conclusion: Most patients valued personalized approaches and rated the benefits of precision medicine of overriding importance irrespective of modality or ethical concerns.

Psychological predictors of advanced cancer patients' preferences for return of results from comprehensive tumor genomic profiling

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty-four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty-nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self-efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty-six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self-efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes.

Value of whole-genome sequencing to Australian cancer patients and their first-degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study

Genomic Sequencing (GS) to identify high cancer risk will soon enter clinical practice at significant cost to the health system. This study aimed to quantify perceived value of GS to Australian cancer patients and their first-degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study, and factors associated with value. Participants were recruited upon consent to the genomics study. Eligible participants (with cancer of likely genetic etiology, or a first-degree relative) completed a questionnaire prior to GS. Willingness to pay was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios of actionable result return rates of 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% or 50%. Of 348 probands and 213 relatives (92% and 93% response rate), 81% would consistently have GS for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Participants would pay a median of $1,000 for return rates of at least 20% (probands) or 30% (relatives), and $300 for lower return rates. Probands with common cancers and negative attitudes to uncertainty were more likely to have GS; those with higher education were more willing to pay $1,000 and $3,000 for lower return rates. This study found high interest in, but lower willingness to pay for GS in cancer patients and their first-degree relatives, possibly due to inability to pay. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of how individuals in different risk circumstances, trade-off the risks, harms, and benefits of GS.

Patients' and Oncologists' Knowledge and Expectations Regarding Tumor Multigene Next-Generation Sequencing: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Tumor multigene next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being offered to cancer patients to guide clinical management and determine eligibility for clinical trials. We undertook a review of studies examining the knowledge and attitudes of patients and oncologists regarding the primary results and potential secondary findings of such testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search was conducted through the MEDLINE database using the following keywords: "neoplasms" and "molecular sequencing / genome sequencing / tumor profiling / NGS / whole exome sequencing" and "patient / oncologist" and "knowledge / attitudes / satisfaction / experience / evaluation / perspective / practice / preference." Articles meeting the inclusion criteria and additional relevant articles from their references were selected.

RESULTS

From 1,142 publications identified by the search and 9 from references, 21 publications were included in the final review. Patients generally had positive attitudes toward tumor NGS despite relatively little knowledge of test-related genetics concepts, but their expectations often exceeded the reality of low clinical utility. Patients with higher education and greater genetics knowledge had more realistic expectations and a more altruistic view of the role of NGS. Attitudes toward disclosure of secondary findings were highly variable. Oncologists had poor to moderate genomic literacy; they communicated challenges with tempering patient expectations and deciding what information to disclose.

CONCLUSION

Patients considering undergoing tumor NGS should be provided with easily understandable resources explaining the procedure, goals, and probable outcomes, whenever possible based on evidence-based guidelines. Continuing medical education programs on this topic for oncology health care professionals should strive to improve their genomic literacy and instruct them on how to optimally present this information to their patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Oncologists are increasingly offering tumor multigene testing to patients with advanced cancers to guide more "personalized" treatment and/or determine eligibility for clinical trials. However, patients often have inadequate understanding and unrealistic expectations. Oncologists must ensure that they themselves have sufficient knowledge of the benefits and limitations of testing and must provide their patients with appropriate educational resources. Prior to testing, patients should be told the likelihood of finding a mutation in their specific tumor type for which a targeted treatment or clinical trial is available. Patients also need clear information about the possibility and implications of secondary findings.