1
|
McInerny S, Mascarenhas L, Yanes T, Petelin L, Chenevix-Trench G, Southey MC, Young MA, James PA. Using polygenic risk modification to improve breast cancer prevention: study protocol for the PRiMo multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e087874. [PMID: 39107016 PMCID: PMC11308879 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087874] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2024] [Accepted: 07/16/2024] [Indexed: 08/09/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Established personal and familial risk factors contribute collectively to a woman's risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Existing clinical services offer genetic testing for pathogenic variants in high-risk genes to investigate these risks but recent information on the role of common genomic variants, in the form of a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS), has provided the potential to further personalise breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment. Data from cohort studies support the potential of an integrated risk assessment to improve targeted risk management but experience of this approach in clinical practice is limited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The polygenic risk modification trial is an Australian multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial of integrated risk assessment including personal and family risk factors with inclusion of breast and ovarian PRS vs standard care. The study will enrol women, unaffected by cancer, undergoing predictive testing at a familial cancer clinic for a pathogenic variant in a known breast cancer (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC) predisposition gene (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, RAD51C, RAD51D). Array-based genotyping will be used to generate breast cancer (313 SNP) and ovarian cancer (36 SNP) PRS. A suite of materials has been developed for the trial including an online portal for patient consent and questionnaires, and a clinician education programme to train healthcare providers in the use of integrated risk assessment. Long-term follow-up will evaluate differences in the assessed risk and management advice, patient risk management intentions and adherence, patient-reported experience and outcomes, and the health service implications of personalised risk assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and at all participating centres. Study findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and directly to participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ACTRN12621000009819.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone McInerny
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lyon Mascarenhas
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Tatiane Yanes
- Frazer Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Lara Petelin
- The Daffodil Centre, joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- The University of Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Georgia Chenevix-Trench
- Cancer Genetics Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| | - Melissa C Southey
- Precision Medicine, Monash University School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Cancer Council Victoria Cancer Epidemiology Division, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mary-Anne Young
- Clinical Translation and Engagement Platform, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia
- School of Clinical Medicine, St Vincent's Healthcare Clinical Campus, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Paul A James
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kubota K, Nakashima K, Nakashima K, Kataoka M, Inoue K, Goto M, Kanbayashi C, Hirokaga K, Yamaguchi K, Suzuki A. The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 2022 edition. Breast Cancer 2024; 31:157-164. [PMID: 37973686 PMCID: PMC10901949 DOI: 10.1007/s12282-023-01521-x] [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: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 10/24/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Abstract
This article provides updates to readers based on the newly published Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2022 Edition. These guidelines incorporate the latest evaluation of evidence from studies of diagnostic accuracy. For each clinical question, outcomes for benefits and harms were established, and qualitative or quantitative systematic reviews were conducted. Recommendations were determined through voting by a multidisciplinary group, and guidelines were documented to facilitate shared decision-making among patients and medical professionals. The guidelines address screening, surveillance, and pre- and postoperative diagnosis of breast cancer. In an environment that demands an integrated approach, decisions are needed on how to utilize modalities, such as mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and PET/CT. Additionally, it is vital to understand the appropriate use of new technologies, such as tomosynthesis, elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and to consider how best to adapt these methods for individual patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kazunori Kubota
- Department of Radiology, Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center, 2-1-50 Minami-koshigaya, Koshigaya, Saitama, 343-8555, Japan.
- The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Subcommittee, Tokyo, Japan.
| | - Kazutaka Nakashima
- Department of General Surgery, Kawasaki Medical School General Medical Center, Okayama, Japan
| | - Kazuaki Nakashima
- The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Subcommittee, Tokyo, Japan
- Division of Breast Imaging and Breast Interventional Radiology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan
| | - Masako Kataoka
- The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Subcommittee, Tokyo, Japan
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Kenich Inoue
- The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Subcommittee, Tokyo, Japan
- Breast Cancer Center, Shonan Memorial Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Mariko Goto
- The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Subcommittee, Tokyo, Japan
- Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Chizuko Kanbayashi
- The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Subcommittee, Tokyo, Japan
- Department of Breast Oncology, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata, Japan
| | - Koichi Hirokaga
- Department of Breast Surgery, Hyogo Cancer Center, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Ken Yamaguchi
- Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan
| | - Akihiko Suzuki
- Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Sendai, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
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
|
4
|
Lertwilaiwittaya P, Tantai N, Maneeon S, Kongbunrak S, Nonpanya N, Hurst ACE, Srinonprasert V, Pithukpakorn M. A cost-utility analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk breast cancer patients and family members in Thailand: a cost-effective policy in resource-limited settings. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1257668. [PMID: 38162618 PMCID: PMC10757601 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1257668] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2023] [Accepted: 10/31/2023] [Indexed: 01/03/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Screening for germline pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants (gBRCA) in high-risk breast cancer patients is known to be cost-effective in high-income countries. Nationwide adoption of genetics testing in high-risk breast cancer population remains poor. Our study aimed to assess gBRCA health economics data in the middle-income country setting of Thailand. Methods Decision tree and Markov model were utilized to assess cost-utility between the testing vs. no-testing groups from a societal and lifetime perspective and lifetime. We interviewed 264 patients with breast/ovarian cancer and their family members to assess relevant costs and quality of life using EQ-5D-5L. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity (Monte Carlo simulation), and budget impact analyses were done to estimate the outcome under Thailand's Universal Health Coverage scheme. Results The predicted lifetime cost and Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALY) for those with breast cancer were $13,788 and 10.22 in the testing group and $13,702 and 10.07 in the no-testing group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for gBRCA testing in high-risk breast cancer patients was $573/QALY. The lifetime cost for the family members of those with gBRCA was $14,035 (QALY 9.99), while the no-testing family members group was $14,077 (QALY 9.98). Performing gBRCA testing in family members was cost-saving. Conclusion Cost-utility analysis demonstrated a cost-effective result of gBRCA testing in high-risk breast cancer patients and cost-saving in familial cascade testing. The result was endorsed in the national health benefits package in 2022. Other middle-income countries may observe the cost-effective/cost-saving aspects in common genetic diseases under their national health schemes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pongtawat Lertwilaiwittaya
- Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Siriraj Genomics, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Narisa Tantai
- Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Siriraj Health Policy Unit, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Satanun Maneeon
- Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Siriraj Health Policy Unit, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Sophittha Kongbunrak
- Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Siriraj Health Policy Unit, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Nongyao Nonpanya
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
| | - Anna C. E. Hurst
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
| | - Varalak Srinonprasert
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Siriraj Health Policy Unit, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Manop Pithukpakorn
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Siriraj Genomics, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Roebothan A, Smith KN, Seal M, Etchegary H, Dawson L. Specialty Care and Counselling about Hereditary Cancer Risk Improves Adherence to Cancer Screening and Prevention in Newfoundland and Labrador Patients with BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variants: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:9367-9381. [PMID: 37887578 PMCID: PMC10605144 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30100678] [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: 07/10/2023] [Revised: 10/04/2023] [Accepted: 10/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase the lifetime risks of breast and ovarian cancer. Guidelines recommend breast screening (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammogram) or risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). We sought to (1) characterize the population of BRCA1/2 PV carriers in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), (2) evaluate risk-reducing interventions, and (3) identify factors influencing screening and prevention adherence. We conducted a retrospective study from a population-based provincial cohort of BRCA1/2 PV carriers. The eligibility criteria for risk-reducing interventions were defined for each case and patients were categorized based on their level of adherence with recommendations. Chi-squared and regression analyses were used to determine which factors influenced uptake and level of adherence. A total of 276 BRCA1/2 PV carriers were identified; 156 living NL biological females composed the study population. Unaffected females were younger at testing than those with a cancer diagnosis (44.4 years versus 51.7 years; p = 0.002). Categorized by eligibility, 61.0%, 61.6%, 39.0%, and 75.7% of patients underwent MRI, mammogram, RRM, and RRSO, respectively. Individuals with breast cancer were more likely to have RRM (64.7% versus 35.3%; p < 0.001), and those who attended a specialty hereditary cancer clinic were more likely to be adherent to recommendations (73.2% versus 13.4%; p < 0.001) and to undergo RRSO (84.1% versus 15.9%; p < 0.001). Nearly 40% of the female BRCA1/2 PV carriers were not receiving breast surveillance according to evidence-based recommendations. Cancer risk reduction and uptake of breast imaging and prophylactic surgeries are significantly higher in patients who receive dedicated specialty care. Organized hereditary cancer prevention programs will be a valuable component of Canadian healthcare systems and have the potential to reduce the burden of disease countrywide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aimee Roebothan
- Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL 1AB 3V6, Canada;
| | - Kerri N. Smith
- Centre for Translational Genomics, NL Health Services, St. John’s, NL 1AB 3V6, Canada
- Discipline of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL 1AB 3V6, Canada
| | - Melanie Seal
- Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL 1AB 3V6, Canada;
| | - Holly Etchegary
- Community Health and Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL 1AB 3V6, Canada;
| | - Lesa Dawson
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL 1AB 3V6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cohen SA, Nixon DM, Lichtenberg E. Adding a genetic counseling assistant improves efficiency of hereditary cancer genetic counseling without impacting patient experience. J Genet Couns 2023. [PMID: 36617522 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2021] [Revised: 12/13/2022] [Accepted: 12/15/2022] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Improving efficiency of genetic counseling can allow genetic counselors to see more patients, increasing access to this valuable service. However, the patient experience should be carefully considered as changes are made, so that quality is not sacrificed. The primary outcome of this study was time in session with a board-certified genetic counselor at baseline (T0), after the addition of a genetic counseling assistant (GCA) (T1). The secondary outcome was the patient experience, which was collected from an electronic survey sent three days after the genetic counseling session. A total of 689 appointments were evaluated over 12 months; 291 in T0 by two genetic counselors (Jan-June 2019), 398 in T1 by two genetic counselors (August 2019-Jan 2020). The overall genetic counseling median appointment time decreased by 10 min in T1 (p < 0.001), and the median amount of time spent on post-session activities by the two genetic counselors decreased by 15 min (p < 0.001). There was an increase in the average number of patients seen per FTE per month from 24.3 in T0 to 33.2 in T1. There was no difference in overall patient experience from T0 to T1 (p = 0.3). There was high patient satisfaction, including with the amount of time spent in a session during both time periods (p = 0.63). This study found decreased appointment time with the addition of a GCA in a single clinic without impacting patient experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie A Cohen
- Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment Program, Ascension St. Vincent, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Dawn M Nixon
- Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment Program, Ascension St. Vincent, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Emily Lichtenberg
- Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment Program, Ascension St. Vincent, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Etchegary H, Pike A, Puddester R, Watkins K, Warren M, Francis V, Woods M, Green J, Savas S, Seal M, Gao Z, Avery S, Curtis F, McGrath J, MacDonald D, Burry TN, Dawson L. Cancer prevention in cancer predisposition syndromes: A protocol for testing the feasibility of building a hereditary cancer research registry and nurse navigator follow up model. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0279317. [PMID: 36548287 PMCID: PMC9778977 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2022] [Accepted: 12/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Monogenic, high penetrance syndromes, conferring an increased risk of malignancies in multiple organs, are important contributors to the hereditary burden of cancer. Early detection and risk reduction strategies in patients with a cancer predisposition syndrome can save their lives. However, despite evidence supporting the benefits of early detection and risk reduction strategies, most Canadian jurisdictions have not implemented programmatic follow up of these patients. In our study site in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada, there is no centralized, provincial registry of high-risk individuals. There is no continuity or coordination of care providing cancer genetics expertise and no process to ensure that patients are referred to the appropriate specialists or risk management interventions. This paper describes a study protocol to test the feasibility of obtaining and analyzing patient risk management data, specifically patients affected by hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC; BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes) and Lynch syndrome (LS; MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 genes). Through a retrospective cohort study, we will describe these patients' adherence to risk management guidelines and test its relationship to health outcomes, including cancer incidence and stage. Through a qualitative interviews, we will determine the priorities and preferences of patients with any inherited cancer mutation for a follow up navigation model of risk management. Study data will inform a subsequent funding application focused on creating and evaluating a research registry and follow up nurse navigation model. It is not currently known what proportion of cancer mutation carriers are receiving care according to guidelines. Data collected in this study will provide clinical uptake and health outcome information so gaps in care can be identified. Data will also provide patient preference information to inform ongoing and planned research with cancer mutation carriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Holly Etchegary
- Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
- * E-mail:
| | - April Pike
- Faculty of Nursing, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Rebecca Puddester
- Faculty of Nursing, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Kathy Watkins
- Centre for Nursing and Health Studies, Eastern Health, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Mike Warren
- Patient Partner, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Vanessa Francis
- Patient Partner, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Michael Woods
- Division of Biomedical Sciences, Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Jane Green
- Division of Biomedical Sciences, Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Sevtap Savas
- Division of Biomedical Sciences, Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Melanie Seal
- Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Cancer Care Program, Eastern Health, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Zhiwei Gao
- Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Susan Avery
- Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Fiona Curtis
- Provincial Medical Genetics Program, Eastern Health, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Jerry McGrath
- Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Donald MacDonald
- Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - T. Nadine Burry
- Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Lesa Dawson
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Reducing Surgery for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Prevention: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14246117. [PMID: 36551605 PMCID: PMC9776851 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14246117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2022] [Revised: 12/04/2022] [Accepted: 12/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Policymakers require robust cost-effectiveness evidence of risk-reducing-surgery (RRS) for decision making on resource allocation for breast cancer (BC)/ovarian cancer (OC)/endometrial cancer (EC) prevention. We aimed to summarise published data on the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM)/risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO)/risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO) for BC/OC prevention in intermediate/high-risk populations; hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in Lynch syndrome women; and opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (OBS) for OC prevention in baseline-risk populations. Major databases were searched until December 2021 following a prospective protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42022338008). Data were qualitatively synthesised following a PICO framework. Twenty two studies were included, with a reporting quality varying from 53.6% to 82.1% of the items scored in the CHEERS checklist. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/incremental cost-utility ratio and cost thresholds were inflated and converted to US$2020, using the original currency consumer price index (CPI) and purchasing power parities (PPP), for comparison. Eight studies concluded that RRM and/or RRSO were cost-effective compared to surveillance/no surgery for BRCA1/2, while RRESDO was cost-effective compared to RRSO in one study. Three studies found that hysterectomy with BSO was cost-effective compared to surveillance in Lynch syndrome women. Two studies showed that RRSO was also cost-effective at ≥4%/≥5% lifetime OC risk for pre-/post-menopausal women, respectively. Seven studies demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of OBS at hysterectomy (n = 4), laparoscopic sterilisation (n = 4) or caesarean section (n = 2). This systematic review confirms that RRS is cost-effective, while the results are context-specific, given the diversity in the target populations, health systems and model assumptions, and sensitive to the disutility, age and uptake rates associated with RRS. Additionally, RRESDO/OBS were sensitive to the uncertainty concerning the effect sizes in terms of the OC-risk reduction and long-term health impact. Our findings are relevant for policymakers/service providers and the design of future research studies.
Collapse
|
9
|
Davidoff AJ, Akif K, Halpern MT. Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2022; 2022:12-20. [PMID: 35788372 DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgac011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2021] [Accepted: 03/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings "neoplasms" and "economics" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy J Davidoff
- Healthcare Assessment Research Branch, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | - Kaitlin Akif
- Office of the Associate Director, Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | - Michael T Halpern
- Healthcare Assessment Research Branch, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lee YQ, Yoon SY, Hassan T, Padmanabhan H, Yip CH, Keng WT, Thong MK, Ahmad Annuar MA, Mohd Taib NA, Teo SH. Attitudes and training needs of oncologists and surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in a low-to-middle income Asian country. J Genet Couns 2022; 31:1080-1089. [PMID: 35481858 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1579] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Revised: 03/26/2022] [Accepted: 04/03/2022] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
With the advent of poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapies, the focus of genetic testing for breast, ovarian, and other cancers has shifted from risk management to treatment decision-making in high-resource settings. Due to the shortage of genetic counselors worldwide, alternative ways of delivering genetic counseling have been explored, including training nongenetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) to provide genetic counseling. However, little is known about the feasibility of adopting such models in healthcare settings with insufficient specialists, where population health literacy is low and where access to new therapies may be limited. In this study, we evaluated the attitudes, considerations, and self-efficacy of oncologists, breast surgeons, and general surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country with a universal healthcare system. We developed a 32-item survey via a modified Delphi method, which was then distributed via a purposive and network sampling approach. While 77% of respondents expressed interest in providing breast cancer genetic counseling, 85% preferred to refer patients directly to genetic services for genetic counseling and testing. The main considerations for mainstreaming were the cost of genetic testing and PARPi therapy, as well as the availability of support from genetics professionals. Respondents reported a lack of confidence in communicating genetic risk, particularly to patients with poor health literacy, and in the clinical management of patients with variants of uncertain significance. Our results highlight the urgent need to train more NGHPs in providing genetic counseling and testing in low-to-middle income countries, and suggest that the mainstay for genetic counseling in this setting may be for risk management rather than access to PARPi therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Wee-Teik Keng
- Genetics Department, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Meow-Keong Thong
- Department of Paediatrics, Genetic Medicine Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | | | - Nur Aishah Mohd Taib
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Li J, Jia Z, Zhang M, Liu G, Xing Z, Wang X, Huang X, Feng K, Wu J, Wang W, Wang J, Liu J, Wang X. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance Among BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Systematic Review. Front Oncol 2022; 11:763161. [PMID: 35083138 PMCID: PMC8785233 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.763161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2021] [Accepted: 12/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are suggested with regular breast cancer surveillance screening strategies using mammography with supplementary MRI as an adjunct tool in Western countries. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, however, the benefits of screening modalities remain controversial among different mutated genes and screening schedules. Methods We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to collect and compare the results of different cost-effectiveness analyses. A simulated model was used to predict the impact of screening strategies in the target group on cost, life-year gained, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results Nine cost-effectiveness studies were included. Combined mammography and MRI strategy is cost-effective in BRCA1 mutation carriers for the middle-aged group (age 35 to 54). BRCA2 mutation carriers are less likely to benefit from adjunct MRI screening, which implies that mammography alone would be sufficient from a cost-effectiveness perspective, regardless of dense breast cancer. Conclusions Precision screening strategies among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers should be conducted according to the acceptable ICER, i.e., a combination of mammography and MRI for BRCA1 mutation carriers and mammography alone for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020205471.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiaxin Li
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ziqi Jia
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Menglu Zhang
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Gang Liu
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Zeyu Xing
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Xin Wang
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Xin Huang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Kexin Feng
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Jiang Wu
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Wenyan Wang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Jie Wang
- Department of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Jiaqi Liu
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Xiang Wang
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Mühlberger N, Sroczynski G, Gogollari A, Jahn B, Pashayan N, Steyerberg E, Widschwendter M, Siebert U. Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies. THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS : HEPAC : HEALTH ECONOMICS IN PREVENTION AND CARE 2021; 22:1311-1344. [PMID: 34342797 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01338-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2020] [Accepted: 06/10/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Benefit and cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening are still matters of controversy. Risk-adapted strategies are proposed to improve its benefit-harm and cost-benefit relations. Our objective was to perform a systematic review on economic breast cancer models evaluating primary and secondary prevention strategies in the European health care setting, with specific focus on model results, model characteristics, and risk-adapted strategies. METHODS Literature databases were systematically searched for economic breast cancer models evaluating the cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention strategies in the European health care context. Characteristics, methodological details and results of the identified studies are reported in evidence tables. Economic model outputs are standardized to achieve comparable cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS Thirty-two economic evaluations of breast cancer screening and seven evaluations of primary breast cancer prevention were included. Five screening studies and none of the prevention studies considered risk-adapted strategies. Studies differed in methodologic features. Only about half of the screening studies modeled overdiagnosis-related harms, most often indirectly and without reporting their magnitude. All models predict gains in life expectancy and/or quality-adjusted life expectancy at acceptable costs. However, risk-adapted screening was shown to be more effective and efficient than conventional screening. CONCLUSIONS Economic models suggest that breast cancer screening and prevention are cost effective in the European setting. All screening models predict gains in life expectancy, which has not yet been confirmed by trials. European models evaluating risk-adapted screening strategies are rare, but suggest that risk-adapted screening is more effective and efficient than conventional screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikolai Mühlberger
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria
| | - Gaby Sroczynski
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria
| | - Artemisa Gogollari
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria
| | - Beate Jahn
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, Department of Applied Health Research, UCL-University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK
| | - Ewout Steyerberg
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 9600, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Martin Widschwendter
- Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, UCL - University College London, 74 Huntley St, Rm 340, London, WC1E 6AU, UK
| | - Uwe Siebert
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria.
- Division of Health Technology Assessment and Bioinformatics, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria.
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health Decision Science, Boston, MA, USA.
- Harvard Medical School, Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Berger ER, Golshan M. Surgical Management of Hereditary Breast Cancer. Genes (Basel) 2021; 12:1371. [PMID: 34573353 PMCID: PMC8470490 DOI: 10.3390/genes12091371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2021] [Revised: 08/26/2021] [Accepted: 08/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
The identification that breast cancer is hereditary was first described in the nineteenth century. With the identification of the BRCA1 and BRCA 2 breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes in the mid-1990s and the introduction of genetic testing, significant advancements have been made in tailoring surveillance, guiding decisions on medical or surgical risk reduction and cancer treatments for genetic variant carriers. This review discusses various medical and surgical management options for hereditary breast cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth R. Berger
- Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA;
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Carbonara N, La Forgia D, Pellegrino R, Ressa C, Tommasi S. A Cost Decision Model Supporting Treatment Strategy Selection in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers in Breast Cancer. J Pers Med 2021; 11:847. [PMID: 34575624 PMCID: PMC8470684 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11090847] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2021] [Revised: 08/21/2021] [Accepted: 08/25/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
In this paper, a cost decision-making model that compares the healthcare costs for diverse treatment strategies is built for BRCA-mutated women with breast cancer. Moreover, this model calculates the cancer treatment costs that could potentially be prevented, if the treatment strategy with the lowest total cost, along the entire lifetime of the patient, is chosen for high-risk women with breast cancer. The benchmark of the healthcare costs for diverse treatment strategies is selected in the presence of uncertainty, i.e., considering, throughout the lifetime of the patient, the risks and complications that may arise in each strategy and, therefore, the costs associated with the management of such events. Our results reveal a clear economic advantage of adopting the cost decision-making model for benchmarking the healthcare costs for various treatment strategies for BRCA-mutated women with breast cancer. The cost savings were higher when all breast cancer patients underwent counseling and genetic testing before deciding on any diagnostic-therapeutic path, with a probability of obtaining savings of over 75%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nunzia Carbonara
- Departments of Mechanics Mathematics and Management, Politecnico di Bari, 70126 Bari, Italy;
| | - Daniele La Forgia
- SSD Radiodiagnostica Senologica, I.R.C.C.S. Istituto Tumori “Giovanni Paolo II” di Bari, 70124 Bari, Italy;
| | - Roberta Pellegrino
- Departments of Mechanics Mathematics and Management, Politecnico di Bari, 70126 Bari, Italy;
| | - Cosmo Ressa
- S.C. Chirurgia Plastica e Ricostruttiva, I.R.C.C.S. Istituto Tumori “Giovanni Paolo II” di Bari, 70124 Bari, Italy;
| | - Stefania Tommasi
- SSD Diagnostica Molecolare e Farmacogenetica, I.R.C.C.S. Istituto Tumori “Giovanni Paolo II” di Bari, 70124 Bari, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
No Association of Early-Onset Breast or Ovarian Cancer with Early-Onset Cancer in Relatives in BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation Families. Genes (Basel) 2021; 12:genes12071100. [PMID: 34356116 PMCID: PMC8305427 DOI: 10.3390/genes12071100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2021] [Revised: 06/24/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
According to clinical guidelines, the occurrence of very early-onset breast cancer (VEO-BC) (diagnosed ≤ age 30 years) or VEO ovarian cancer (VEO-OC) (diagnosed ≤ age 40 years) in families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) prompts advancing the age of risk-reducing strategies in relatives. This study aimed to assess the relation between the occurrence of VEO-BC or VEO-OC in families with BRCAm and age at BC or OC diagnosis in relatives. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study of 448 consecutive families with BRCAm from 2003 to 2018. Mean age and 5-year–span distribution of age at BC or OC in relatives were compared in families with or without VEO-BC or VEO-OC. Conditional probability calculation and Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel chi-square tests were used to investigate early-onset cancer occurrence in relatives of VEO-BC and VEO-OC cases. Overall, 15% (19/245) of families with BRCA1m and 9% (19/203) with BRCA2m featured at least one case of VEO-BC; 8% (37/245) and 2% (2/203) featured at least one case of VEO-OC, respectively. The cumulative prevalence of VEO-BC was 5.1% (95% CI 3.6–6.6) and 2.5% (95% CI 1.4–3.6) for families with BRCA1m and BRCA2m, respectively. The distribution of age and mean age at BC diagnosis in relatives did not differ by occurrence of VEO-BC for families with BRCA1m or BRCA2m. Conditional probability calculations did not show an increase of early-onset BC in VEO-BC families with BRCA1m or BRCA2m. Conversely, the probability of VEO-BC was not increased in families with early-onset BC. VEO-BC or VEO-OC occurrence may not be related to young age at BC or OC onset in relatives in families with BRCAm. This finding—together with a relatively high VEO-BC risk for women with BRCAm—advocates for MRI breast screening from age 25 regardless of family history.
Collapse
|
16
|
Mulder RL, Hudson MM, Bhatia S, Landier W, Levitt G, Constine LS, Wallace WH, van Leeuwen FE, Ronckers CM, Henderson TO, Moskowitz CS, Friedman DN, Ng AK, Jenkinson HC, Demoor-Goldschmidt C, Skinner R, Kremer LC, Oeffinger KC. Updated Breast Cancer Surveillance Recommendations for Female Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer From the International Guideline Harmonization Group. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:4194-4207. [PMID: 33078972 PMCID: PMC7723685 DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.00562] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE As new evidence is available, the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group has updated breast cancer surveillance recommendations for female survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer. METHODS We used evidence-based methods to apply new knowledge in refining the international harmonized recommendations developed in 2013. The guideline panel updated the systematic literature review, developed evidence summaries, appraised the evidence, and updated recommendations on the basis of evidence, clinical judgement, and consideration of benefits versus the harms of the surveillance interventions while attaining flexibility in implementation across different health care systems. The GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework was used to translate evidence to recommendations. A survivor information form was developed to counsel survivors about the potential harms and benefits of surveillance. RESULTS The literature update identified new study findings related to the effects of prescribed moderate-dose chest radiation (10 to 19 Gy), radiation dose-volume, anthracyclines and alkylating agents in non-chest irradiated survivors, and the effects of ovarian function on breast cancer risk. Moreover, new data from prospective investigations were available regarding the performance metrics of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging among survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. Modified recommendations include the performance of mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging for survivors treated with 10 Gy or greater chest radiation (strong recommendation) and upper abdominal radiation exposing breast tissue at a young age (moderate recommendation) at least annually up to age 60 years. As a result of inconsistent evidence, no recommendation could be formulated for routine breast cancer surveillance for survivors treated with any type of anthracyclines in the absence of chest radiation. CONCLUSION The newly identified evidence prompted significant change to the recommendations formulated in 2013 related to moderate-dose chest radiation and anthracycline exposure as well as breast cancer surveillance modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Renée L. Mulder
- Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Melissa M. Hudson
- Departments of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, and Oncology, St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN
| | - Smita Bhatia
- Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship and Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | - Wendy Landier
- Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship and Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | - Gill Levitt
- Department of Oncology/Haematology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Louis S. Constine
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
| | - W. Hamish Wallace
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Flora E. van Leeuwen
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Cécile M. Ronckers
- Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Institute for Biostatistics and Registry Research, Medical University Brandenburg, Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Tara O. Henderson
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Chaya S. Moskowitz
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Danielle N. Friedman
- Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Helen C. Jenkinson
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Charlotte Demoor-Goldschmidt
- Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Cancer and Radiation team, University of Paris-Sud, Villejuif, France
- Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Hematology/Oncology, CHU Angers, Angers, France
| | - Roderick Skinner
- Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Haematology/Oncology, Great North Children’s Hospital and Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Leontien C.M. Kremer
- Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Department of Pediatric Oncology, Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Quaio CRDC, Moreira CM, Novo‐Filho GM, Sacramento‐Bobotis PR, Groenner Penna M, Perazzio SF, Dutra AP, Silva RA, Santos MNP, Arruda VYN, Freitas VG, Pereira VC, Pintao MC, Fornari ARDS, Buzolin AL, Oku AY, Burger M, Ramalho RF, Marco Antonio DS, Ferreira EN, Pereira OJE, Cantagalli VD, Trindade ACG, Sousa RRF, Reys Furuzawa C, Verzini F, Matalhana SD, Romano N, Paixão D, Olivati C, Spolador GM, Maciel GAR, Rocha VZ, Miguelez J, Carvalho MHB, Souza AWS, Andrade LEC, Chauffaille MDL, Perazzio ADSB, Catelani ALPM, Mitne‐Neto M, Kim CA, Baratela WADR. Diagnostic power and clinical impact of exome sequencing in a cohort of 500 patients with rare diseases. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART C-SEMINARS IN MEDICAL GENETICS 2020; 184:955-964. [DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31860] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2020] [Revised: 11/03/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Caio Robledo D'Angioli Costa Quaio
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
- Instituto da Crianca (Children's Hospital) Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo Sao Paulo SP Brazil
| | | | | | | | | | - Sandro Felix Perazzio
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
- Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo São Paulo SP Brazil
| | | | - Rafael Alves Silva
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
- Escola Paulista de Medicina, Laboratório de Hepatologia Molecular Aplicada (LHeMA) Universidade Federal de São Paulo São Paulo SP Brazil
| | | | | | - Vanessa Galdeno Freitas
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
- Instituto de Matemática e Estatística da Universidade de São Paulo e Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa do Hospital Sírio Libanês São Paulo SP Brazil
| | | | | | | | | | - Andre Yuji Oku
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
| | - Matheus Burger
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Naiade Romano
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
| | - Daniele Paixão
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
| | | | | | - Gustavo Arantes Rosa Maciel
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
- Discipline of Gynecology Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo São Paulo SP Brazil
| | - Viviane Zorzanelli Rocha
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
- Heart Institute (InCor) Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo São Paulo SP Brazil
| | | | - Mario Henrique Burlacchini Carvalho
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
- Disciplina de Obstetrícia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo São Paulo SP Brazil
| | - Alexandre Wagner Silva Souza
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
- Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo São Paulo SP Brazil
| | - Luis Eduardo Coelho Andrade
- Fleury Medicina e Saúde Grupo Fleury São Paulo SP Brazil
- Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo São Paulo SP Brazil
| | | | | | | | | | - Chong Ae Kim
- Instituto da Crianca (Children's Hospital) Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo Sao Paulo SP Brazil
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Cost-effectiveness of long-term clinical management of BRCA pathogenic variant carriers. Genet Med 2020; 22:831-839. [DOI: 10.1038/s41436-020-0751-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2019] [Accepted: 01/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
|
19
|
Hudson L, Gower N, Lenarcic S, Trufan SJ, White RL. Radiographic Surveillance of Patients with Non-BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variants. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27:2248-2254. [PMID: 31974710 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-08191-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) developed clinical practice guidelines for germline pathogenic variants in highly penetrant genes, such as TP53 and PTEN, and in moderately penetrant genes, such as CHEK2, ATM and PALB2. Whether the practice of radiographic surveillance of patients with pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2 complies with current NCCN guidelines remains unclear. METHODS Retrospective review of patients identified with pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2 from 2007 through 2017 to determine if radiographic surveillance was in accordance with NCCN guidelines for mammography and consideration of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Exclusions included variants of unknown significance, pathogenic variants not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, and previous breast cancer diagnosis. RESULTS After exclusions, 35 patients with pathogenic variants in ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, PTEN, and STK11 genes were reviewed to assess whether radiographic surveillance was in accordance with NCCN guidelines. Guidelines for those with variants in ATM, CHEK2 and NBN includes annual mammography with tomosynthesis and consideration of breast MRI at age 40, variants in CDH1 and PALB2 at age 30, variants in PTEN at age 30-35 or 5-10 years before the earliest family breast cancer, and variants in STK11 at age 25. Of these 35 patients, 11 (31%) received mammography only; 11 (31%) received mammography and MRI, and 13 (37%) received no radiographic surveillance. Two of the 35 (6%) patients who received radiographic surveillance were diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer. CONCLUSION Thirty-one percent of patients with pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2 received both mammography and MRI. Thirty-seven percent of patients with these highly penetrant and moderately penetrant genes received no radiographic follow-up, clearly demonstrating an opportunity for improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Hudson
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Nicole Gower
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Stacy Lenarcic
- Department of Genetics, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Sally J Trufan
- Department of Cancer Biostatistics, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Richard L White
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Petelin L, Hossack L, Mitchell G, Liew D, Trainer AH, James PA. A Microsimulation Model for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cancer Risk Management for BRCA Pathogenic Variant Carriers: miBRovaCAre. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2019; 22:854-862. [PMID: 31426925 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2018] [Revised: 02/20/2019] [Accepted: 03/05/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To develop a validated model for evaluating the real-world effectiveness of long-term clinical management strategies for women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants. METHODS A microsimulation model was developed that included a BRCA-specific natural history for breast and ovarian cancer, a clinical framework for carrier follow-up, and cancer risk management strategies (breast screening, risk-reducing mastectomy, and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy). Adherence rates and outcomes for breast screening and risk-reducing surgery were obtained from BRCA carriers seen through a familial cancer service in Melbourne, Australia. The model was assessed for internal and external validity. The model was used to compare women perfectly adhering to screening recommendations versus actual adherence of the clinical cohort. RESULTS The model accurately predicted cancer incidence, pathology, and mortality. Using actual adherence for breast screening resulted in additional breast cancer deaths (per 1000 women: BRCA1, 2.7; BRCA2, 1.6) compared with perfect screening adherence. This decreased average life expectancy by 0.30 life-years for BRCA1 and 0.07 life-years for BRCA2. When carriers had access to risk-reducing mastectomy, the benefit from improved screening adherence was not significant. CONCLUSIONS The developed model is a good descriptor of BRCA carriers' lifetime trajectory and its modification by use of risk management strategies alone or in combination. Evaluations of breast screening in BRCA carriers may overestimate the benefits of screening programs unless adherence is considered. By incorporating real-world clinical practice and patient behavior, this model can assist in developing clinical services and improving clinical outcomes for carriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lara Petelin
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Lucinda Hossack
- Clinical Genetics, Austin Health, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Gillian Mitchell
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Danny Liew
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alison H Trainer
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Paul A James
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, July 2019. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2019; 48:478-491. [PMID: 31194933 DOI: 10.1016/j.jogn.2019.05.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
22
|
Kemp Z, Turnbull A, Yost S, Seal S, Mahamdallie S, Poyastro-Pearson E, Warren-Perry M, Eccleston A, Tan MM, Teo SH, Turner N, Strydom A, George A, Rahman N. Evaluation of Cancer-Based Criteria for Use in Mainstream BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e194428. [PMID: 31125106 PMCID: PMC6632150 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.4428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Increasing BRCA1 and BRCA2 (collectively termed herein as BRCA) gene testing is required to improve cancer management and prevent BRCA-related cancers. OBJECTIVE To evaluate mainstream genetic testing using cancer-based criteria in patients with cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A quality improvement study and cost-effectiveness analysis of different BRCA testing selection criteria and access procedures to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and mutation detection performance was conducted at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust as part of the Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) Programme. Participants included 1184 patients with cancer who were undergoing genetic testing between September 1, 2013, and February 28, 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mutation rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were the primary outcomes. RESULTS Of the 1184 patients (1158 women [97.8%]) meeting simple cancer-based criteria, 117 had a BRCA mutation (9.9%). The mutation rate was similar in retrospective United Kingdom (10.2% [235 of 2294]) and prospective Malaysian (9.7% [103 of 1061]) breast cancer studies. If traditional family history criteria had been used, more than 50% of the mutation-positive individuals would have been missed. Of the 117 mutation-positive individuals, 115 people (98.3%) attended their genetics appointment and cascade to relatives is underway in all appropriate families (85 of 85). Combining with the equivalent ovarian cancer study provides 5 simple cancer-based criteria for BRCA testing with a 10% mutation rate: (1) ovarian cancer; (2) breast cancer diagnosed when patients are 45 years or younger; (3) 2 primary breast cancers, both diagnosed when patients are 60 years or younger; (4) triple-negative breast cancer; and (5) male breast cancer. A sixth criterion-breast cancer plus a parent, sibling, or child with any of the other criteria-can be added to address family history. Criteria 1 through 5 are considered the MCG criteria, and criteria 1 through 6 are considered the MCGplus criteria. Testing using MCG or MCGplus criteria is cost-effective with cost-effectiveness ratios of $1330 per discounted QALYs and $1225 per discounted QALYs, respectively, and appears to lead to cancer and mortality reductions (MCG: 804 cancers, 161 deaths; MCGplus: 1020 cancers, 204 deaths per year over 50 years). Use of MCG or MCGplus criteria might allow detection of all BRCA mutations in patients with breast cancer in the United Kingdom through testing one-third of patients. Feedback questionnaires from 259 patients and 23 cancer team members (12 oncologists, 8 surgeons, and 3 nurse specialists) showed acceptability of the process with 100% of patients pleased they had genetic testing and 100% of cancer team members confident to approve patients for genetic testing. Use of MCGplus criteria also appeared to be time and resource efficient, requiring 95% fewer genetic consultations than the traditional process. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study suggests that mainstream testing using simple, cancer-based criteria might be able to efficiently deliver consistent, cost-effective, patient-centered BRCA testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Kemp
- Breast Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Cancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alice Turnbull
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Shawn Yost
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sheila Seal
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Shazia Mahamdallie
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Poyastro-Pearson
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Margaret Warren-Perry
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Min-Min Tan
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Soo Hwang Teo
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia
| | - Nicholas Turner
- Breast Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ann Strydom
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Angela George
- Cancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nazneen Rahman
- Cancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Zhang L, Bao Y, Riaz M, Tiller J, Liew D, Zhuang X, Amor DJ, Huq A, Petelin L, Nelson M, James PA, Winship I, McNeil JJ, Lacaze P. Population genomic screening of all young adults in a health-care system: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet Med 2019; 21:1958-1968. [PMID: 30773532 PMCID: PMC6752319 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0457-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2018] [Accepted: 01/29/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To consider the impact and cost-effectiveness of offering preventive population genomic screening to all young adults in a single-payer health-care system. Methods We modeled screening of 2,688,192 individuals, all adults aged 18–25 years in Australia, for pathogenic variants in BRCA1/BRCA2/MLH1/MSH2 genes, and carrier screening for cystic fibrosis (CF), spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and fragile X syndrome (FXS), at 71% testing uptake using per-test costs ranging from AUD$200 to $1200 (~USD$140 to $850). Investment costs included genetic counseling, surveillance, and interventions (reimbursed only) for at-risk individuals/couples. Cost-effectiveness was defined below AUD$50,000/DALY (disability-adjusted life year) prevented, using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), compared with current targeted testing. Outcomes were cancer incidence/mortality, disease cases, and treatment costs reduced. Results Population screening would reduce variant-attributable cancers by 28.8%, cancer deaths by 31.2%, and CF/SMA/FXS cases by 24.8%, compared with targeted testing. Assuming AUD$400 per test, investment required would be between 4 and 5 times higher than current expenditure. However, screening would lead to substantial savings in medical costs and DALYs prevented, at a highly cost-effective ICER of AUD$4038/DALY. At AUD$200 per test, screening would approach cost-saving for the health system (ICER = AUD$22/DALY). Conclusion Preventive genomic screening in early adulthood would be highly cost-effective in a single-payer health-care system, but ethical issues must be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lei Zhang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an, Shaanxi, PR China.,Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Yining Bao
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Moeen Riaz
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jane Tiller
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Danny Liew
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Xun Zhuang
- School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - David J Amor
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services; Murdoch Children's Research Institute; Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Aamira Huq
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital; Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Lara Petelin
- Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Mark Nelson
- Discipline of General Practice, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
| | - Paul A James
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital; Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ingrid Winship
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital; Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - John J McNeil
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Paul Lacaze
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|