1
|
Sun L, Wei X, Fierheller CT, Dawson L, Oxley S, Kalra A, Sia J, Feldman F, Peacock S, Schrader KA, Legood R, Kwon JS, Manchanda R. Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing in Canada. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2432725. [PMID: 39264630 PMCID: PMC11393724 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.32725] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Population-based BRCA testing can identify many more BRCA carriers who will be missed by the current practice of BRCA testing based on family history (FH) and clinical criteria. These carriers can benefit from screening and prevention, potentially preventing many more breast and ovarian cancers and deaths than the current practice. Objective To estimate the incremental lifetime health outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with population-based BRCA testing compared with FH-based testing in Canada. Design, Setting, and Participants For this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing for all general population women aged 30 years compared with FH-based testing. BRCA carriers are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce their ovarian cancer risk and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography screening, medical prevention, and risk-reducing mastectomy to reduce their breast cancer risk. The analyses were conducted from both payer and societal perspectives. This study was conducted from October 1, 2022, to February 20, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest were ovarian cancer, breast cancer, additional heart disease deaths, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic-sensitivity-analyses (PSA) were undertaken to explore the uncertainty. Results In the simulated cohort of 1 000 000 women aged 30 years in Canada, the base case ICERs of population-based BRCA testing were CAD $32 276 (US $23 402.84) per QALY from the payer perspective or CAD $16 416 (US $11 903.00) per QALY from the societal perspective compared with FH-based testing, well below the established Canadian cost-effectiveness thresholds. Population testing remained cost-effective for ages 40 to 60 years but not at age 70 years. The results were robust for multiple scenarios, 1-way sensitivity, and PSA. More than 99% of simulations from payer and societal perspectives were cost-effective on PSA (5000 simulations) at the CAD $50 000 (US $36 254.25) per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Population-based BRCA testing could potentially prevent an additional 2555 breast cancers and 485 ovarian cancers in the Canadian population, corresponding to averting 196 breast cancer deaths and 163 ovarian cancer deaths per 1 000 000 population. Conclusions and Relevance In this economic evaluation, population-based BRCA testing was cost-effective compared with FH-based testing in Canada from payer and societal perspectives. These findings suggest that changing the genetic testing paradigm to population-based testing could prevent thousands of breast and ovarian cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Caitlin T Fierheller
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lesa Dawson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jacqueline Sia
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Fabio Feldman
- Prevention, Screening, Hereditary Cancer Program and Quality, Safety & Accreditation, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Stuart Peacock
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Kasmintan A Schrader
- Hereditary Cancer Program, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Janice S Kwon
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Moss E, Taylor A, Andreou A, Ang C, Arora R, Attygalle A, Banerjee S, Bowen R, Buckley L, Burbos N, Coleridge S, Edmondson R, El-Bahrawy M, Fotopoulou C, Frost J, Ganesan R, George A, Hanna L, Kaur B, Manchanda R, Maxwell H, Michael A, Miles T, Newton C, Nicum S, Ratnavelu N, Ryan N, Sundar S, Vroobel K, Walther A, Wong J, Morrison J. British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) ovarian, tubal and primary peritoneal cancer guidelines: Recommendations for practice update 2024. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2024; 300:69-123. [PMID: 39002401 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.06.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2024] [Accepted: 06/13/2024] [Indexed: 07/15/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Esther Moss
- College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
| | | | - Adrian Andreou
- Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK
| | - Christine Ang
- Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Gateshead, UK
| | - Rupali Arora
- Department of Cellular Pathology, University College London NHS Trust, 60 Whitfield Street, London W1T 4E, UK
| | | | | | - Rebecca Bowen
- Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK
| | - Lynn Buckley
- Beverley Counselling & Psychotherapy, 114 Holme Church Lane, Beverley, East Yorkshire HU17 0PY, UK
| | - Nikos Burbos
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, UK
| | | | - Richard Edmondson
- Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester and University of Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - Mona El-Bahrawy
- Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London W12 0HS, UK
| | | | - Jonathan Frost
- Gynaecological Oncology, Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Combe Park, Bath, Bath BA1 3NG, UK; University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Raji Ganesan
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK
| | | | - Louise Hanna
- Department of Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Whitchurch, Cardiff CF14 2TL, UK
| | - Baljeet Kaur
- North West London Pathology (NWLP), Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London W12 0HS, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London and Barts Health NHS Trust, UK
| | - Hillary Maxwell
- Dorset County Hospital, Williams Avenue, Dorchester, Dorset DT1 2JY, UK
| | - Agnieszka Michael
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford GU2 7XX and University of Surrey, School of Biosciences, GU2 7WG, UK
| | - Tracey Miles
- Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK
| | - Claire Newton
- Gynaecology Oncology Department, St Michael's Hospital, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol BS1 3NU, UK
| | - Shibani Nicum
- Department of Oncology, University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK
| | | | - Neil Ryan
- The Centre for Reproductive Health, Institute for Regeneration and Repair (IRR), 4-5 Little France Drive, Edinburgh BioQuarter City, Edinburgh EH16 4UU, UK
| | - Sudha Sundar
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham and Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, City Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH, UK
| | - Katherine Vroobel
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Marsden Foundation NHS Trust, London SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Axel Walther
- Bristol Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - Jason Wong
- Department of Histopathology, East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Ipswich Hospital, Heath Road, Ipswich IP4 5PD, UK
| | - Jo Morrison
- University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, GRACE Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton TA1 5DA, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gootzen TA, Kalra A, Sarig K, Sobočan M, Oxley SG, Dworschak N, Georgiannakis A, Glynou S, Taniskidi A, Ganesan S, Ferris M, Legood R, Eeles R, Evans DGR, Fierheller CT, Manchanda R. Online Provision of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Health Information: A Search Engine Driven Systematic Web-Based Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:2324. [PMID: 39001386 PMCID: PMC11240379 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16132324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2024] [Revised: 06/23/2024] [Accepted: 06/24/2024] [Indexed: 07/16/2024] Open
Abstract
BRCA genetic testing is available for UK Jewish individuals but the provision of information online for BRCA is unknown. We aimed to evaluate online provision of BRCA information by UK organisations (UKO), UK Jewish community organisations (JCO), and genetic testing providers (GTP). Google searches for organisations offering BRCA information were performed using relevant sets of keywords. The first 100 website links were categorised into UKOs/JCOs/GTPs; additional JCOs were supplemented through community experts. Websites were reviewed using customised questionnaires for BRCA information. Information provision was assessed for five domains: accessibility, scope, depth, accuracy, and quality. These domains were combined to provide a composite score (maximum score = 5). Results were screened (n = 6856) and 45 UKOs, 16 JCOs, and 18 GTPs provided BRCA information. Accessibility was high (84%,66/79). Scope was lacking with 35% (28/79) addressing >50% items. Most (82%, 65/79) described BRCA-associated cancers: breast and/or ovarian cancer was mentioned by 78%(62/79), but only 34% (27/79) mentioned ≥1 pancreatic, prostate, melanoma. Few websites provided carrier frequencies in the general (24%,19/79) and Jewish populations (20%,16/79). Only 15% (12/79) had quality information with some/minimal shortcomings. Overall information provision was low-to-moderate: median scores UKO = 2.1 (IQR = 1), JCO = 1.6 (IQR = 0.9), and GTP = 2.3 (IQR = 1) (maximum-score = 5). There is a scarcity of high-quality BRCA information online. These findings have implications for UK Jewish BRCA programmes and those considering BRCA testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tamar A Gootzen
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention & Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention & Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Katrina Sarig
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention & Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Monika Sobočan
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention & Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Taborksa ul, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
| | - Samuel George Oxley
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention & Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Nina Dworschak
- Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AD, UK
| | - Ariadni Georgiannakis
- Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AD, UK
| | - Sevasti Glynou
- Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AD, UK
| | - Angeliki Taniskidi
- Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AD, UK
| | - Subhasheenee Ganesan
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention & Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
| | | | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK
| | - Ros Eeles
- The Institute of Cancer Research, and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London SM2 5PT, UK
| | - D Gareth R Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, MAHSC, 6th Floor Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Caitlin T Fierheller
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention & Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention & Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sarig K, Oxley S, Kalra A, Sobocan M, Fierheller CT, Sideris M, Gootzen T, Ferris M, Eeles RA, Evans DG, Quaife SL, Manchanda R. BRCA awareness and testing experience in the UK Jewish population: a qualitative study. J Med Genet 2024; 61:716-725. [PMID: 38575303 DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2023-109576] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Accepted: 03/09/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND 1 in 40 UK Jewish individuals carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/BRCA2. Traditional testing criteria miss half of carriers, and so population genetic testing is being piloted for Jewish people in England. There has been no qualitative research into the factors influencing BRCA awareness and testing experience in this group. This study aimed to explore these and inform improvements for the implementation of population genetic testing. METHODS Qualitative study of UK Jewish adults who have undergone BRCA testing. We conducted one-to-one semistructured interviews via telephone or video call using a predefined topic guide, until sufficient information power was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS 32 individuals were interviewed (28 carriers, 4 non-carriers). We interpreted five themes intersecting across six time points of the testing pathway: (1) individual differences regarding personal/family history of cancer, demographics and personal attitudes/approach; (2) healthcare professionals' support; (3) pathway access and integration; (4) nature of family/partner relationships; and (5) Jewish community factors. Testing was largely triggered by connecting information to a personal/family history of cancer. No participants reported decision regret, although there was huge variation in satisfaction. Suggestions were given around increasing UK Jewish community awareness, making information and support services personally relevant and proactive case management of carriers. CONCLUSIONS There is a need to improve UK Jewish community BRCA awareness and to highlight personal relevance of testing for individuals without a personal/family history of cancer. Traditional testing criteria caused multiple issues regarding test access and experience. Carriers want information and support services tailored to their individual circumstances.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Monika Sobocan
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
| | | | - Michail Sideris
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Rosalind A Eeles
- Oncogenetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Oxley SG, Wei X, Sideris M, Blyuss O, Kalra A, Sia JJY, Ganesan S, Fierheller CT, Sun L, Sadique Z, Jin H, Manchanda R, Legood R. Utility Scores for Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy: Mapping to EQ-5D. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1358. [PMID: 38611036 PMCID: PMC11010846 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16071358] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2024] [Revised: 03/27/2024] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/14/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are the most effective breast and ovarian cancer preventive interventions. EQ-5D is the recommended tool to assess the quality of life and determine health-related utility scores (HRUSs), yet there are no published EQ-5D HRUSs after these procedures. These are essential for clinicians counselling patients and for health-economic evaluations. METHODS We used aggregate data from our published systematic review and converted SF-36/SF-12 summary scores to EQ-5D HRUSs using a published mapping algorithm. Study control arm or age-matched country-specific reference values provided comparison. Random-effects meta-analysis provided adjusted disutilities and utility scores. Subgroup analyses included long-term vs. short-term follow-up. RESULTS Four studies (209 patients) reported RRM outcomes using SF-36, and five studies (742 patients) reported RRSO outcomes using SF-12/SF-36. RRM is associated with a long-term (>2 years) disutility of -0.08 (95% CI -0.11, -0.04) (I2 31.4%) and a utility of 0.92 (95% CI 0.88, 0.95) (I2 31.4%). RRSO is associated with a long-term (>1 year) disutility of -0.03 (95% CI -0.05, 0.00) (I2 17.2%) and a utility of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94, 0.99) (I2 34.0%). CONCLUSIONS We present the first HRUSs sourced from patients following RRM and RRSO. There is a need for high-quality prospective studies to characterise quality of life at different timepoints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel G. Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Xia Wei
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Institute of Child´s Health, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Jacqueline J. Y. Sia
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Subhasheenee Ganesan
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Caitlin T. Fierheller
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| | - Zia Sadique
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| | - Haomiao Jin
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7YH, UK;
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| | - Rosa Legood
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sideris M, Menon U, Manchanda R. Screening and prevention of ovarian cancer. Med J Aust 2024; 220:264-274. [PMID: 38353066 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.52227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Accepted: 12/11/2023] [Indexed: 03/07/2024]
Abstract
Ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynaecological malignancy with 314 000 cases and 207 000 deaths annually worldwide. Ovarian cancer cases and deaths are predicted to increase in Australia by 42% and 55% respectively by 2040. Earlier detection and significant downstaging of ovarian cancer have been demonstrated with multimodal screening in the largest randomised controlled trial of ovarian cancer screening in women at average population risk. However, none of the randomised trials have demonstrated a mortality benefit. Therefore, ovarian cancer screening is not currently recommended in women at average population risk. More frequent surveillance for ovarian cancer every three to four months in women at high risk has shown good performance characteristics and significant downstaging, but there is no available information on a survival benefit. Population testing offers an emerging novel strategy to identify women at high risk who can benefit from ovarian cancer prevention. Novel multicancer early detection biomarker, longitudinal multiple marker strategies, and new biomarkers are being investigated and evaluated for ovarian cancer screening. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) decreases ovarian cancer incidence and mortality and is recommended for women at over a 4-5% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. Pre-menopausal women without contraindications to hormone replacement therapy (HRT) undergoing RRSO should be offered HRT until 51 years of age to minimise the detrimental consequences of premature menopause. Currently risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO) should only be offered to women at increased risk of ovarian cancer within the context of a research trial. Pre-menopausal early salpingectomy is associated with fewer menopausal symptoms and better sexual function than bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. A Sectioning and Extensively Examining the Fimbria (SEE-FIM) protocol should be used for histopathological assessment in women at high risk of ovarian cancer who are undergoing surgical prevention. Opportunistic salpingectomy may be offered at routine gynaecological surgery to all women who have completed their family. Long term prospective opportunistic salpingectomy studies are needed to determine the effect size of ovarian cancer risk reduction and the impact on menopause.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Usha Menon
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
- Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lacaze P, Marquina C, Tiller J, Brotchie A, Kang YJ, Merritt MA, Green RC, Watts GF, Nowak KJ, Manchanda R, Canfell K, James P, Winship I, McNeil JJ, Ademi Z. Combined population genomic screening for three high-risk conditions in Australia: a modelling study. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 66:102297. [PMID: 38192593 PMCID: PMC10772163 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102297] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2023] [Revised: 10/12/2023] [Accepted: 10/13/2023] [Indexed: 01/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Background No previous health-economic evaluation has assessed the impact and cost-effectiveness of offering combined adult population genomic screening for mutliple high-risk conditions in a national public healthcare system. Methods This modeling study assessed the impact of offering combined genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome and familial hypercholesterolaemia to all young adults in Australia, compared with the current practice of clinical criteria-based testing for each condition separately. The intervention of genomic screening, assumed as an up-front single cost in the first annual model cycle, would detect pathogenic variants in seven high-risk genes. The simulated population was 18-40 year-olds (8,324,242 individuals), modelling per-sample test costs ranging AU$100-$1200 (base-case AU$200) from the year 2023 onwards with testing uptake of 50%. Interventions for identified high-risk variant carriers follow current Australian guidelines, modelling imperfect uptake and adherence. Outcome measures were morbidity and mortality due to cancer (breast, ovarian, colorectal and endometrial) and coronary heart disease (CHD) over a lifetime horizon, from healthcare-system and societal perspectives. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), discounted 5% annually (with 3% discounting in scenario analysis). Findings Over the population lifetime (to age 80 years), the model estimated that genomic screening per-100,000 individuals would lead to 747 QALYs gained by preventing 63 cancers, 31 CHD cases and 97 deaths. In the total model population, this would translate to 31,094 QALYs gained by preventing 2612 cancers, 542 non-fatal CHD events and 4047 total deaths. At AU$200 per-test, genomic screening would require an investment of AU$832 million for screening of 50% of the population. Our findings suggest that this intervention would be cost-effective from a healthcare-system perspective, yielding an ICER of AU$23,926 (∼£12,050/€14,110/US$15,345) per QALY gained over the status quo. In scenario analysis with 3% discounting, an ICER of AU$4758/QALY was obtained. Sensitivity analysis for the base case indicated that combined genomic screening would be cost-effective under 70% of simulations, cost-saving under 25% and not cost-effective under 5%. Threshold analysis showed that genomic screening would be cost-effective under the AU$50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold at per-test costs up to AU$325 (∼£164/€192/US$208). Interpretation Our findings suggest that offering combined genomic screening for high-risk conditions to young adults would be cost-effective in the Australian public healthcare system, at currently realistic testing costs. Other matters, including psychosocial impacts, ethical and societal issues, and implementation challenges, also need consideration. Funding Australian Government, Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, Genomics Health Futures Mission (APP2009024). National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (102604).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Lacaze
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia
| | - Clara Marquina
- Health Economics and Policy Evaluation Research (HEPER) Group, Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
| | - Jane Tiller
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia
| | - Adam Brotchie
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia
| | - Yoon-Jung Kang
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW 2011, Australia
| | - Melissa A. Merritt
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW 2011, Australia
| | - Robert C. Green
- Mass General Brigham, Broad Institute, Ariadne Labs and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
| | - Gerald F. Watts
- School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
- Departments of Cardiology and Internal Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, 6001, Australia
| | - Kristen J. Nowak
- Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Western Australia Department of Health, East Perth, WA, 6004, Australia
- Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - Karen Canfell
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW 2011, Australia
| | - Paul James
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter McCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital City Campus, Parkville, VIC, 3050, Australia
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3050, Australia
| | - Ingrid Winship
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital City Campus, Parkville, VIC, 3050, Australia
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3050, Australia
| | - John J. McNeil
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia
| | - Zanfina Ademi
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia
- Health Economics and Policy Evaluation Research (HEPER) Group, Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wei X, Oxley S, Sideris M, Kalra A, Brentnall A, Sun L, Yang L, Legood R, Manchanda R. Quality of life after risk-reducing surgery for breast and ovarian cancer prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023; 229:388-409.e4. [PMID: 37059410 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 03/31/2023] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the impact of risk-reducing surgery for breast cancer and ovarian cancer prevention on quality of life. We considered risk-reducing mastectomy, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, and risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy. DATA SOURCES We followed a prospective protocol (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42022319782) and searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from inception to February 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA We followed a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design) framework. The population included women at increased risk of breast cancer or ovarian cancer. We focused on studies reporting quality of life outcomes (health-related quality of life, sexual function, menopause symptoms, body image, cancer-related distress or worry, anxiety, or depression) after risk-reducing surgery, including risk-reducing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer. METHODS We used the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for study appraisal. Qualitative synthesis and fixed-effects meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS A total of 34 studies were included (risk-reducing mastectomy: 16 studies; risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: 19 studies; risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy: 2 studies). Health-related quality of life was unchanged or improved in 13 of 15 studies after risk-reducing mastectomy (N=986) and 10 of 16 studies after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (N=1617), despite short-term deficits (N=96 after risk-reducing mastectomy and N=459 after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy). Sexual function (using the Sexual Activity Questionnaire) was affected in 13 of 16 studies (N=1400) after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in terms of decreased sexual pleasure (-1.21 [-1.53 to -0.89]; N=3070) and increased sexual discomfort (1.12 [0.93-1.31]; N=1400). Hormone replacement therapy after premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with an increase (1.16 [0.17-2.15]; N=291) in sexual pleasure and a decrease (-1.20 [-1.75 to -0.65]; N=157) in sexual discomfort. Sexual function was affected in 4 of 13 studies (N=147) after risk-reducing mastectomy, but stable in 9 of 13 studies (N=799). Body image was unaffected in 7 of 13 studies (N=605) after risk-reducing mastectomy, whereas 6 of 13 studies (N=391) reported worsening. Increased menopause symptoms were reported in 12 of 13 studies (N=1759) after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy with a reduction (-1.96 [-2.81 to -1.10]; N=1745) in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Endocrine Symptoms. Cancer-related distress was unchanged or decreased in 5 of 5 studies after risk-reducing mastectomy (N=365) and 8 of 10 studies after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (N=1223). Risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (2 studies, N=413) led to better sexual function and menopause-specific quality of life. CONCLUSION Risk-reducing surgery may be associated with quality of life outcomes. Risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy reduce cancer-related distress, and do not affect health-related quality of life. Women and clinicians should be aware of body image problems after risk-reducing mastectomy, and of sexual dysfunction and menopause symptoms after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy may be a promising alternative to mitigate quality of life-related risks of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.
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, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, 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, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, 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, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Adam Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, 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, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, 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
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
| |
Collapse
|