|
1
|
Sun L, Wei X, Fierheller CT, Dawson L, Oxley S, Kalra A, Sia J, Feldman F, Peacock S, Schrader KA, Legood R, Kwon JS, Manchanda R. Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing in Canada. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2432725. [PMID: 39264630 PMCID: PMC11393724 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.32725] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2024] [Accepted: 07/15/2024] [Indexed: 09/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Population-based BRCA testing can identify many more BRCA carriers who will be missed by the current practice of BRCA testing based on family history (FH) and clinical criteria. These carriers can benefit from screening and prevention, potentially preventing many more breast and ovarian cancers and deaths than the current practice. Objective To estimate the incremental lifetime health outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with population-based BRCA testing compared with FH-based testing in Canada. Design, Setting, and Participants For this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing for all general population women aged 30 years compared with FH-based testing. BRCA carriers are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce their ovarian cancer risk and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography screening, medical prevention, and risk-reducing mastectomy to reduce their breast cancer risk. The analyses were conducted from both payer and societal perspectives. This study was conducted from October 1, 2022, to February 20, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest were ovarian cancer, breast cancer, additional heart disease deaths, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic-sensitivity-analyses (PSA) were undertaken to explore the uncertainty. Results In the simulated cohort of 1 000 000 women aged 30 years in Canada, the base case ICERs of population-based BRCA testing were CAD $32 276 (US $23 402.84) per QALY from the payer perspective or CAD $16 416 (US $11 903.00) per QALY from the societal perspective compared with FH-based testing, well below the established Canadian cost-effectiveness thresholds. Population testing remained cost-effective for ages 40 to 60 years but not at age 70 years. The results were robust for multiple scenarios, 1-way sensitivity, and PSA. More than 99% of simulations from payer and societal perspectives were cost-effective on PSA (5000 simulations) at the CAD $50 000 (US $36 254.25) per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Population-based BRCA testing could potentially prevent an additional 2555 breast cancers and 485 ovarian cancers in the Canadian population, corresponding to averting 196 breast cancer deaths and 163 ovarian cancer deaths per 1 000 000 population. Conclusions and Relevance In this economic evaluation, population-based BRCA testing was cost-effective compared with FH-based testing in Canada from payer and societal perspectives. These findings suggest that changing the genetic testing paradigm to population-based testing could prevent thousands of breast and ovarian cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Caitlin T. Fierheller
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lesa Dawson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jacqueline Sia
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Fabio Feldman
- Prevention, Screening, Hereditary Cancer Program and Quality, Safety & Accreditation, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Stuart Peacock
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Kasmintan A. Schrader
- Hereditary Cancer Program, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Janice S. Kwon
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Sarig K, Oxley S, Kalra A, Sobocan M, Fierheller CT, Sideris M, Gootzen T, Ferris M, Eeles RA, Evans DG, Quaife SL, Manchanda R. BRCA awareness and testing experience in the UK Jewish population: a qualitative study. J Med Genet 2024; 61:716-725. [PMID: 38575303 DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2023-109576] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Accepted: 03/09/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND 1 in 40 UK Jewish individuals carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/BRCA2. Traditional testing criteria miss half of carriers, and so population genetic testing is being piloted for Jewish people in England. There has been no qualitative research into the factors influencing BRCA awareness and testing experience in this group. This study aimed to explore these and inform improvements for the implementation of population genetic testing. METHODS Qualitative study of UK Jewish adults who have undergone BRCA testing. We conducted one-to-one semistructured interviews via telephone or video call using a predefined topic guide, until sufficient information power was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS 32 individuals were interviewed (28 carriers, 4 non-carriers). We interpreted five themes intersecting across six time points of the testing pathway: (1) individual differences regarding personal/family history of cancer, demographics and personal attitudes/approach; (2) healthcare professionals' support; (3) pathway access and integration; (4) nature of family/partner relationships; and (5) Jewish community factors. Testing was largely triggered by connecting information to a personal/family history of cancer. No participants reported decision regret, although there was huge variation in satisfaction. Suggestions were given around increasing UK Jewish community awareness, making information and support services personally relevant and proactive case management of carriers. CONCLUSIONS There is a need to improve UK Jewish community BRCA awareness and to highlight personal relevance of testing for individuals without a personal/family history of cancer. Traditional testing criteria caused multiple issues regarding test access and experience. Carriers want information and support services tailored to their individual circumstances.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Monika Sobocan
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
| | | | - Michail Sideris
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Rosalind A Eeles
- Oncogenetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Davey MG, Tormey S. Implications of Highly Penetrant Genetic Variants on Breast Surgery. Clin Breast Cancer 2024; 24:180-183. [PMID: 38218718 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2024.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 01/15/2024]
Abstract
It seems the most probable beneficiaries from the molecular era are those harboring hereditary genetic variants, which are responsible for 5% to 10% of all breast cancer diagnoses. There are several key implications of such variants on clinical practice, from expedited anticipation of primary cancer diagnoses, which can have their risk mitigated by risk reduction surgery, to pragmatism surrounding the management of male breast cancer patients. This communication discusses the implications of highly penetrant (or pathogenic) hereditary variants in contemporary breast surgery practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew G Davey
- Department of Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland; Department of Breast Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
| | - Shona Tormey
- Department of Breast Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Oxley SG, Wei X, Sideris M, Blyuss O, Kalra A, Sia JJY, Ganesan S, Fierheller CT, Sun L, Sadique Z, Jin H, Manchanda R, Legood R. Utility Scores for Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy: Mapping to EQ-5D. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1358. [PMID: 38611036 PMCID: PMC11010846 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16071358] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2024] [Revised: 03/27/2024] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/14/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are the most effective breast and ovarian cancer preventive interventions. EQ-5D is the recommended tool to assess the quality of life and determine health-related utility scores (HRUSs), yet there are no published EQ-5D HRUSs after these procedures. These are essential for clinicians counselling patients and for health-economic evaluations. METHODS We used aggregate data from our published systematic review and converted SF-36/SF-12 summary scores to EQ-5D HRUSs using a published mapping algorithm. Study control arm or age-matched country-specific reference values provided comparison. Random-effects meta-analysis provided adjusted disutilities and utility scores. Subgroup analyses included long-term vs. short-term follow-up. RESULTS Four studies (209 patients) reported RRM outcomes using SF-36, and five studies (742 patients) reported RRSO outcomes using SF-12/SF-36. RRM is associated with a long-term (>2 years) disutility of -0.08 (95% CI -0.11, -0.04) (I2 31.4%) and a utility of 0.92 (95% CI 0.88, 0.95) (I2 31.4%). RRSO is associated with a long-term (>1 year) disutility of -0.03 (95% CI -0.05, 0.00) (I2 17.2%) and a utility of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94, 0.99) (I2 34.0%). CONCLUSIONS We present the first HRUSs sourced from patients following RRM and RRSO. There is a need for high-quality prospective studies to characterise quality of life at different timepoints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel G. Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Xia Wei
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Institute of Child´s Health, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Jacqueline J. Y. Sia
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Subhasheenee Ganesan
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Caitlin T. Fierheller
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| | - Zia Sadique
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| | - Haomiao Jin
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7YH, UK;
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| | - Rosa Legood
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Wei X, Sun L, Slade E, Fierheller CT, Oxley S, Kalra A, Sia J, Sideris M, McCluggage WG, Bromham N, Dworzynski K, Rosenthal AN, Brentnall A, Duffy S, Evans DG, Yang L, Legood R, Manchanda R. Cost-Effectiveness of Gene-Specific Prevention Strategies for Ovarian and Breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2355324. [PMID: 38334999 PMCID: PMC10858404 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/16/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) confer an increased ovarian cancer (OC) risk, with BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D PVs also conferring an elevated breast cancer (BC) risk. Risk-reducing surgery, medical prevention, and BC surveillance offer the opportunity to prevent cancers and deaths, but their cost-effectiveness for individual CSGs remains poorly addressed. Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for OC and BC among individuals carrying PVs in the previously listed CSGs. Design, Setting, and Participants In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and, where relevant, risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) compared with nonsurgical interventions (including BC surveillance and medical prevention for increased BC risk) from December 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023. The analysis took a UK payer perspective with a lifetime horizon. The simulated cohort consisted of women aged 30 years who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. Appropriate sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. Exposures CSG-specific interventions, including RRSO at age 35 to 50 years with or without BC surveillance and medical prevention (ie, tamoxifen or anastrozole) from age 30 or 40 years, RRM at age 30 to 40 years, both RRSO and RRM, BC surveillance and medical prevention, or no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. OC and BC cases and deaths were estimated. Results In the simulated cohort of women aged 30 years with no cancer, undergoing both RRSO and RRM was most cost-effective for individuals carrying BRCA1 (RRM at age 30 years; RRSO at age 35 years), BRCA2 (RRM at age 35 years; RRSO at age 40 years), and PALB2 (RRM at age 40 years; RRSO at age 45 years) PVs. The corresponding ICERs were -£1942/QALY (-$2680/QALY), -£89/QALY (-$123/QALY), and £2381/QALY ($3286/QALY), respectively. RRSO at age 45 years was cost-effective for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PV carriers compared with nonsurgical strategies. The corresponding ICERs were £962/QALY ($1328/QALY), £771/QALY ($1064/QALY), and £2355/QALY ($3250/QALY), respectively. The most cost-effective preventive strategy per 1000 PV carriers could prevent 923 OC and BC cases and 302 deaths among those carrying BRCA1; 686 OC and BC cases and 170 deaths for BRCA2; 464 OC and BC cases and 130 deaths for PALB2; 102 OC cases and 64 deaths for RAD51C; 118 OC cases and 76 deaths for RAD51D; and 55 OC cases and 37 deaths for BRIP1. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated both RRSO and RRM were most cost-effective in 96.5%, 89.2%, and 84.8% of simulations for BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 PVs, respectively, while RRSO was cost-effective in approximately 100% of simulations for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PVs. Conclusions and Relevance In this cost-effectiveness study, RRSO with or without RRM at varying optimal ages was cost-effective compared with nonsurgical strategies for individuals who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. These findings support personalizing risk-reducing surgery and guideline recommendations for individual CSG-specific OC and BC risk management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Eric Slade
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom
| | - Caitlin T. Fierheller
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jacqueline Sia
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - W. Glenn McCluggage
- Department of Pathology, Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Nathan Bromham
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Adam N. Rosenthal
- Department of Gynaecology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation trust, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Women’s Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Adam Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Li Yang
- School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Wei X, Oxley S, Sideris M, Legood R, Manchanda R. Patient-reported quality of life following prophylactic surgery for breast and ovarian cancer prevention: response. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024; 230:274-275. [PMID: 37659746 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.08.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2023] [Accepted: 08/26/2023] [Indexed: 09/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Zhou J, Wu P, Zhang Y. Patient-reported quality of life might depend on prophylactic or therapeutic surgery for women with higher genetic predisposition to breast or ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024; 230:273-274. [PMID: 37659747 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.08.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 08/26/2023] [Indexed: 09/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Junyi Zhou
- Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, 9 Jinsui Rd., Guangzhou 510623, China
| | - Pengfei Wu
- Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, 9 Jinsui Rd., Guangzhou 510623, China.
| | - Yangyang Zhang
- Breast Disease Center, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|