Canadian cost-effectiveness model of BRCA-driven surgical prevention of breast/ovarian cancers compared to treatment if cancer develops

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.

Germline BRCA testing in pancreatic cancer: improving awareness, timing, turnaround, and uptake

Prognosis is generally poor for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. However, patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (gBRCAm) may benefit from first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance therapy with the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib following at least 16 weeks of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy without disease progression. Germline breast cancer gene (BRCA) testing is therefore important to ensure that patients receive the most effective treatment. In addition, testing for other DNA damage response gene mutations beyond gBRCAm may also guide treatment decisions. However, clinical pathways for genetic testing are often suboptimal, leading to delays in treatment initiation or missed opportunities for personalized therapy. Barriers to testing include low rates of referral and uptake, delays to referral and slow result turnaround times, cost, and biopsy and assay limitations if somatic testing is performed, leading to the requirement for subsequent dedicated germline testing. Low rates of referral may result from lack of awareness among physicians of the clinical value of testing, coupled with low confidence in interpreting test results and poor availability of genetic counseling services. Among patients, barriers to uptake may include similar lack of awareness of the clinical value of testing, anxiety regarding the implications of test results, lack of insurance coverage, fear of negative insurance implications, and socioeconomic factors. Potential solutions include innovative approaches to testing pathways, including 'mainstreaming' of testing in which BRCA tests are routinely arranged by the treating oncologist, with the involvement of genetic counselors if a patient is found to have a gBRCAm. More recently, the utility of multigene panel analyses has also been explored. Access to genetic counseling may also be improved through initiatives such as having a genetic counseling appointment for all new patient visits and telemedicine approaches, including the use of telephone consultations or DVD-assisted counseling. Educational programs will also be beneficial, and cost effectiveness is likely to improve as the number of targeted treatments increases and when the earlier detection of tumors in family members following cascade testing is considered.

Economic evaluations of predictive genetic testing: A scoping review

Predictive genetic testing can provide information about whether or not someone will develop or is likely to develop a specific condition at a later stage in life. Economic evaluation can assess the value of money for such testing. Studies on the economic evaluation of predictive genetic testing have been carried out in a variety of settings, and this research aims to conduct a scoping review of findings from these studies. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases with combined search terms, from 2019 to 2022. Relevant studies from 2013 to 2019 in a previous systematic review were also included. The study followed the recommended stages for undertaking a scoping review. A total of 53 studies were included, including 33 studies from the previous review and 20 studies from the search of databases. A significant number of studies focused on the US, UK, and Australia (34%, 23%, and 11%). The most frequently included health conditions were cancer and cardiovascular diseases (68% and 19%). Over half of the studies compared predictive genetic testing with no genetic testing, and the majority of them concluded that at least some type of genetic testing was cost-effective compared to no testing (94%). Some studies stated that predictive genetic testing is becoming more cost-effective with the trend of lowering genetic testing costs. Studies on predictive genetic testing covered various health conditions, particularly cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Most studies indicated that predictive genetic testing is cost-effective compared to no testing.

Prevention of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Given the challenges with achieving effective and durable treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer, primary prevention is highly desirable. Fortunately, decades of research have provided evidence for several strategies that can be deployed to optimize risk reduction. These include surgery, chemoprevention, and lifestyle factor modifications. These broad categories vary in terms of the magnitude of risk reduction possible, the possible short-term and long-term side effects, the degree of difficulty, and acceptability. Thus, the concept of a risk-based model to personalize preventive interventions is advocated to guide discussion between care providers and women at risk. For women with inherited major gene mutations that greatly increase risk of ovarian cancer, surgical approaches have favorable risk to benefit ratios. Chemoprevention and lifestyle factor modifications portend a lower degree of risk reduction but confer lower risk of undesirable side effects. Since complete prevention is not currently possible, better methods for early detection remain a high priority.

A review of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for germline variants in familial cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted germline testing is recommended for those with or at risk of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. The affordability of genetic sequencing has improved over the past decade, therefore the cost-effectiveness of testing for these cancers is worthy of reassessment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review economic evaluations on cost-effectiveness of germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A search of PubMed and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies on germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer, published between 1999 and May 2022. Synthesis of methodology, cost-effectiveness, and reporting (CHEERS checklist) was performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; in 2021-adjusted US$) for germline testing versus the standard care option in hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (HBOC) across target settings were as follows: (1) population-wide testing: 344-2.5 million/QALY; (2) women with high-risk: dominant = 78,118/QALY, 8,337-59,708/LYG; (3) existing breast or ovarian cancer: 3,012-72,566/QALY, 39,835/LYG; and (4) metastatic breast cancer: 158,630/QALY. Likewise, ICERs of germline testing for colorectal cancer across settings were: (1) population-wide testing: 132,200/QALY, 1.1 million/LYG; (2) people with high-risk: 32,322-76,750/QALY, dominant = 353/LYG; and (3) patients with existing colorectal cancer: dominant = 54,122/QALY, 98,790-6.3 million/LYG. Key areas of underreporting were the inclusion of a health economic analysis plan (100% of HBOC and colorectal studies), engagement of patients and stakeholders (95.4% of HBOC, 100% of colorectal studies) and measurement of outcomes (18.2% HBOC, 38.9% of colorectal studies).

CONCLUSION

Germline testing for HBOC was likely to be cost-effective across most settings, except when used as a co-dependent technology with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib in metastatic breast cancer. In colorectal cancer studies, testing was cost-effective in those with high-risk, but inconclusive in other settings. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the prevalence of tested variants, cost of testing, uptake, and benefits of prophylactic measures. Policy advice on germline testing should emphasize the importance of these factors in their recommendations.

Mainstream germline genetic testing for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer leads to higher testing rates and a reduction in genetics-related healthcare costs from a healthcare payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

Germline genetic testing is increasingly offered to patients with epithelial ovarian cancer by non-genetic healthcare professionals, so called mainstream genetic testing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implementing a mainstream genetic testing pathway on the percentage of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer to whom genetic testing was offered and the genetics-related healthcare costs.

METHODS

The possible care pathways for genetic counseling and testing and their associated costs were mapped. Patient files from all newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer before (March 2016 - September 2017) and after (April 2018 - December 2019) implementing our mainstream genetic testing pathway were analyzed. Based on this analysis, the percentage of newly diagnosed patients to whom genetic testing was offered was assessed and genetics-related healthcare costs were calculated using a healthcare payer perspective based on a Diagnosis-Related Group financing approach.

RESULTS

Within six months after diagnosis, genetic testing was offered to 56% of patients before and to 70% of patients after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (p = 0.005). Genetics-related healthcare costs decreased from €3.511,29 per patient before implementation to €2.418,41 per patient after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (31% reduction, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that mainstream genetic testing leads to a significantly higher proportion of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer being offered germline genetic testing. In addition, it significantly reduces genetics-related healthcare costs per patient.

Cardiovascular and cancer risk factors analysis for 2001–2020 from the global research output and European newspapers

Cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are now two of the leading components of the global burden of disease, especially in high- and upper-middle-income countries. Causes of the diseases that are amenable to intervention are multiple: tobacco control closely followed by obesity treatment, including promotion of a healthy diet and physical exercise, remain the global priorities. We interrogated the Web of Science (WoS) from 2001 to 2020 to determine the numbers of papers describing research into 14 different possible risk factors causing the two diseases. These ranged in relative importance from tobacco and being overweight to the consumption of excessively hot drinks (linked to oesophageal cancer), pollution (linked to lung cancer particularly) and also non-interventional genetic risks. The risks varied between different continental regions, and obesity has increased as a risk factor for CVD in some of these regions. Because many of these factors are subject to human behavioural choices, we also investigated how such research was being presented to the European public through newspaper reportage. About 40% of the factors that influence the cancer burden can be attributed to particular causes, and more than 85% of those factors influencing CVD can also be so attributed. They are led by tobacco use as a risk factor for cancer, but this is slowly declining in most high-income settings. For CVD, the major risks are metabolic, such as high systolic blood pressure and high body-mass index, but also from tobacco use. Research outputs on some of these different factors in the continental regions correlated positively with their influence on the disease burdens. The selection of European newspaper stories was biased towards those risk factors that could be considered as being under the control of their readers. Reports of research in the mass media have an important role in the control of both cancer and CVD, and should be regarded by public health authorities as a useful means to promulgate health education. This paper is based on one presented at the ISSI conference in Leuven in July 2021 (Pallari and Lewison, in: Glänzel et al (eds) Proceedings of the 18th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, 2021), but has been extended to cover CVD as well as cancer. The geographical analysis of risk factors and research publications has also been modified.

Health Technology Assessment to assess value of biomarkers in the decision-making process

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on screening, surveillance, and treatment of several diseases recommend the selective use of biomarkers with central role in clinical decision-making and move towards including patients in this process. To this aim we will clarify the multidisciplinary interactions required to properly measure the cost-effectiveness of biomarkers with regard to the risk-benefit of the patients and how Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approach may assess value of biomarkers integrated within the decision-making process. HTA through the interaction of different skills provides high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs, and impact of health technologies, including biomarkers. The biostatistical methodology is relevant to HTA but only meta-analysis is covered in depth, whereas proper approaches are needed to estimate the benefit-risk balance ratio. Several biomarkers underwent HTA evaluation and the final reports have pragmatically addressed: 1) a redesign of the screening based on biomarker; 2) a de-implementation/replacement of the test in clinical practice; 3) a selection of biomarkers with potential predictive ability and prognostic value; and 4) a stronger monitoring of the appropriateness of test request. The COVID-19 pandemic has disclosed the need to create a robust and sustainable system to urgently deal with global health concerns and the HTA methodology enables rapid cost-effective implementation of diagnostic tests allowing healthcare providers to make critical patient-management decisions.

Uptake Rates of Risk-Reducing Surgeries for Women at Increased Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Applied to Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Scoping Systematic Review

Simple Summary

For women who have tested positive for BRCA mutations, the decision to make use of preventive surgical options, such as risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), depends on the women’s personal preferences and the cultural/social context. Among others, the cost-effectiveness of RRM and RRSO can be affected by the uptake rate of these preventive surgical options. Uptake rates of surgery should be given more attention in the conceptualization of health economic modeling studies for RRM and RRSO. Prospective multicenter studies are recommended to reflect regional and national variations in women’s preferences for preventive surgery.

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness of genetic screen-and-treat strategies for women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer often depends on the women’s willingness to make use of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). To explore the uptake rates of RRM and RRSO applied in health economic modeling studies and the impact of uptake rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), we conducted a scoping literature review. In addition, using our own model, we conducted a value of information (VOI) analysis. Among the 19 models included in the review, the uptake rates of RRM ranged from 6% to 47% (RRSO: 10% to 88%). Fifty-seven percent of the models applied retrospective data obtained from registries, hospital records, or questionnaires. According to the models’ deterministic sensitivity analyses, there is a clear trend that a lower uptake rate increased the ICER and vice versa. Our VOI analysis showed high decision uncertainty associated with the uptake rates. In the future, uptake rates should be given more attention in the conceptualization of health economic modeling studies. Prospective studies are recommended to reflect regional and national variations in women’s preferences for preventive surgery.

Data on Utility in Cost-Utility Analyses of Genetic Screen-and-Treat Strategies for Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Simple Summary

The prevention of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer involves genetic counselling and several highly preference-sensitive alternatives (i.e., risk-reducing surgeries). In health economics models, data on health preferences applied (i.e., utility values) are heterogeneous. In this methodological analysis, we compared the application of utility values among cost–utility models of targeted genetic testing for the prevention of breast and ovarian cancer. While varying utilities on risk-reducing surgeries and cancer states did not impact the cost–utility ratio, utility losses/gains due to a positive/negative test may strongly affect the cost–utility ratio and should be considered mandatory in future models. Because women’s health preferences may have changed as a result of improved oncologic care and genetic counselling, studies for ascertaining women’s health preferences should be updated.

Abstract

Genetic screen-and-treat strategies for the risk-reduction of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) are often evaluated by cost–utility analyses (CUAs). This analysis compares data on health preferences (i.e., utility values) in CUAs of targeted genetic testing for BC and OC. Based on utilities applied in fourteen CUAs, data on utility including related assumptions were extracted for the health states: (i) genetic test, (ii) risk-reducing surgeries, (iii) BC/OC and (iv) post cancer. In addition, information about the sources of utility and the impact on the cost-effectiveness was extracted. Utility for CUAs relied on heterogeneous data and assumptions for all health states. The utility values ranged from 0.68 to 0.97 for risk-reducing surgeries, 0.6 to 0.85 for BC and 0.5 to 0.82 for OC. In two out of nine studies, considering the impact of the test result strongly affected the cost–effectiveness ratio. While in general utilities seem not to affect the cost–utility ratio, in future modeling studies the impact of a positive/negative test on utility should be considered mandatory. Women’s health preferences, which may have changed as a result of improved oncologic care and genetic counselling, should be re-evaluated.

Cancer Previvors in an Active Duty Service Women Population: An Opportunity for Prevention and Increased Force Readiness

BACKGROUND

The majority of active duty service women (ADS) are young, have access to healthcare, and meet fitness standards set by the U.S. military, suggesting that ADS represent a healthy population at low risk of cancer. Breast cancer is, however, the most common cancer in ADS and may have a significant effect on troop readiness with lengthy absence during treatment and inability to return to duty after the treatment. The identification of unaffected ADS who carry germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes ("previvors") would provide the opportunity to prevent or detect cancer at an early stage, thus minimizing effects on troop readiness. In this study, we determined (1) how many high-risk ADS without cancer pursued genetic testing, (2) how many previvors employed risk-reducing strategies, and (3) the number of undiagnosed previvors within an ADS population.

METHODS

The Clinical Breast Care Project (protocol WRNMMC IRB #20704) database of the Murtha Cancer Center/Walter Reed National Military Medical Center was queried to identify all ADS with no current or previous history of cancer. Classification as high genetic risk was calculated using National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2019 guidelines for genetic testing for breast, ovary, colon, and gastric cancer. The history of clinical genetic testing and risk-reducing strategies was extracted from the database. Genomic DNA from ADS with blood specimens available for research purposes were subjected to next-generation sequencing technologies using a cancer predisposition gene panel.

RESULTS

Of the 336 cancer-free ADS enrolled in the Clinical Breast Care Project, 77 had a family history that met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for genetic testing for BRCA1/2 and 2 had a family history of colon cancer meeting the criteria for genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Of the 28 (35%) high-risk women who underwent clinical genetic testing, 11 had pathogenic mutations in the breast cancer genes BRCA1 (n = 5), BRCA2 (n = 5), or CHEK2 (n = 1). Five of the six ADS who had a relative with a known pathogenic mutation were carriers of the tested mutation. All of the women who had pathogenic mutations detected through clinical genetic testing underwent prophylactic double mastectomy, and three also had risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Two (6%) of the 33 high-risk ADS tested only in the research setting had a family history of breast/ovarian cancer and carried pathogenic mutations: one carried a BRCA2 mutation, whereas the other carried a mutation in the colon cancer predisposition gene PMS2. No mutations were detected in the 177 low-risk women tested in the research setting.

DISCUSSION

Within this unaffected cohort of ADS, 23% were classified as high risk. Although all of the previvors engaged in risk-reduction strategies, only one-third of the high-risk women sought genetic testing. These data suggest that detailed family histories of cancer should be collected in ADS and genetic testing should be encouraged in those at high risk. The identification of previvors and concomitant use of risk-reduction strategies may improve health in the ADS and optimize military readiness by decreasing cancer incidence.

Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Genetic Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Targeted genetic testing is a tool to identify women at increased risk of gynaecological cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluates the results and quality of cost-effectiveness modeling studies that assessed targeted genetic-based screen-and-treat strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Using MEDLINE and databases of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, we searched for health economic modeling evaluations of targeted genetic-based screen-and-treat strategies to prevent inheritable breast and ovarian cancer (until August 2020). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared. Methodological variations were addressed by evaluating the model conceptualizations, the modeling techniques, parameter estimation and uncertainty, and transparency and validation of the models. Additionally, the reporting quality of each study was assessed.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. From a payer perspective, the ICERs of (1) BRCA screening for high-risk women without cancer ranged from dominating the no test strategy to an ICER of $21 700/quality-adjusted life years (QALY). In studies that evaluated (2) BRCA cascade screening (ie, screening of women with cancer plus their unaffected relatives) compared with no test, the ICERs were between $6500/QALY and $50 200/QALY. Compared with BRCA alone, (3) multigene testing in women without cancer had an ICER of $51 800/QALY (one study), while for (4) multigene-cascade screening the ICERs were $15 600/QALY, $56.500/QALY, and $69 600/QALY for women in the United Kingdom, Norway, and the United States, respectively (2 studies). More recently published studies showed a higher methodological and reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted BRCA or multiple gene screening is likely to be cost-effective. Methodological variations could be decreased by the development of a reference model, which may serve as a tool for validation of present and future cost-effectiveness models.