Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multivariate index assay compared to modified American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists criteria and CA-125 in the triage of women with adnexal masses

Current and Emerging Methods for Ovarian Cancer Screening and Diagnostics: A Comprehensive Review

With a 5-year survival rate of less than 50%, ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is one of the most highly aggressive gynecological malignancies affecting women today. The high mortality rate of HGSC is largely attributable to delays in diagnosis, as most patients remain undiagnosed until the late stages of -disease. There are currently no recommended screening tests for ovarian cancer and there thus remains an urgent need for new diagnostic methods, particularly those that can detect the disease at early stages when clinical intervention remains effective. While diagnostics for ovarian cancer share many of the same technical hurdles as for other cancer types, the low prevalence of the disease in the general population, coupled with a notable lack of sensitive and specific biomarkers, have made the development of a clinically useful screening strategy particularly challenging. Here, we present a detailed review of the overall landscape of ovarian cancer diagnostics, with emphasis on emerging methods that employ novel protein, genetic, epigenetic and imaging-based biomarkers and/or advanced diagnostic technologies for the noninvasive detection of HGSC, particularly in women at high risk due to germline mutations such as BRCA1/2. Lastly, we discuss the translational potential of these approaches for achieving a clinically implementable solution for screening and diagnostics of early-stage ovarian cancer as a means of ultimately improving patient outcomes in both the general and high-risk populations.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Pharmacogenetic Test to Guide Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials indicate that pharmacogenetic-guided treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) results in higher treatment response rates by genetically matching patients to medications and avoiding a trial-and-error process.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmacogenetic test (IDGx) that has demonstrated effectiveness compared with standard of care (SOC) medication management among patients with varied MDD severity.

METHODS

Data from a large prospective, randomized controlled trial of treatment-naive patients or patients with inadequately controlled MDD in general practice and psychiatric treatment settings were used to build a Markov state-transition probability model. Analyses were conducted from the societal perspective. Treatment response rates, mortality rates, direct and indirect medical costs, and utility inputs were derived from the reference study and published scientific literature. The cost of the pharmacogenetic test was $2,000. A 3% discount rate was used to discount costs and effects. Univariate one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effect of input parameters on net monetary benefit.

RESULTS

For moderate to severe MDD, the model estimated a cumulative effect over 3 years of 2.07 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the pharmacogenetic-guided treatment group and 1.97 QALYs for the SOC group, including a lower probability of death from suicide (0.328% and 0.351%, respectively). Total costs over 3 years were $44,697 (IDGx) and $47,295 (SOC). This difference includes a savings of $2,918 in direct medical costs and $1,680 in indirect costs. Results were more pronounced when only severely depressed patients were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacogenetic testing among moderate to severe MDD patients improved QALYs and resulted in cost savings. Sensitivity analyses supported the robust nature of the current findings of the dominant IDGx test to guide treatment.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this analysis was provided by AltheaDx, which is the manufacturer of the IDgenetix test. AltheaDx personnel assisted in the study design, data collection, and review of the manuscript. Maciel and Garces are employed by AltheaDx. Groessl has received funding as a consultant from American Specialty Health.

Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in UK women and can be difficult to diagnose, particularly in the early stages. Risk-scoring can help to guide referral to specialist centres.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of risk scores to guide referral decisions for women with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care.

METHODS

Twenty-one databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception to November 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. The meta-analysis using weighted averages and random-effects modelling was used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The cost-effectiveness analysis considered the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with different risk-scoring methods, and subsequent care pathways. Modelling comprised a decision tree and a Markov model. The decision tree was used to model short-term outcomes and the Markov model was used to estimate the long-term costs and QALYs associated with treatment and progression.

RESULTS

Fifty-one diagnostic cohort studies were included in the systematic review. The Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) score did not offer any advantage over the Risk of Malignancy Index 1 (RMI 1). Patients with borderline tumours or non-ovarian primaries appeared to account for disproportionately high numbers of false-negative, low-risk ROMA scores. (Confidential information has been removed.) To achieve similar levels of sensitivity to the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model and the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group's simple ultrasound rules, a very low RMI 1 decision threshold (25) would be needed; the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the RMI 1 at this threshold were 94.9% (95% CI 91.5% to 97.2%) and 51.1% (95% CI 47.0% to 55.2%), respectively. In the base-case analysis, RMI 1 (threshold of 250) was the least effective [16.926 life-years (LYs), 13.820 QALYs] and the second cheapest (£5669). The IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules (inconclusive, assumed to be malignant) were the cheapest (£5667) and the second most effective [16.954 LYs, 13.841 QALYs], dominating RMI 1. The ADNEX model (threshold of 10%), costing £5699, was the most effective (16.957 LYs, 13.843 QALYs), and compared with the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules, resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £15,304 per QALY gained. At thresholds of up to £15,304 per QALY gained, the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules are cost-effective; the ADNEX model (threshold of 10%) is cost-effective for higher thresholds.

LIMITATIONS

Information on the downstream clinical consequences of risk-scoring was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the ADNEX model and the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules may offer increased sensitivity relative to current practice (RMI 1); that is, more women with malignant tumours would be referred to a specialist multidisciplinary team, although more women with benign tumours would also be referred. The cost-effectiveness model supports prioritisation of sensitivity over specificity. Further research is needed on the clinical consequences of risk-scoring.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016053326.

FUNDING DETAILS

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Economic evaluation of an expert examiner and different ultrasound models in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer

The Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) is commonly used to diagnose adnexal masses. The aim of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the RMI compared with subjective assessment (SA) by an expert and the following novel ultrasound models: Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses were performed from a societal perspective. A decision tree was constructed, and short-term costs and effects were examined in women with adnexal masses. Sensitivity, specificity and the costs of diagnostic strategies were incorporated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as costs/additional percentage of correctly diagnosed patients. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. Effectiveness was highest for SA (90.7% [95% confidence interval = 77.3-100]), with a cost saving of 5.0% (-€398 per patient [-€1403 to 549]) compared with the RMI. The costs of SR + SA were the lowest (€7180 [6072-8436]), resulting in a cost saving of 9.0% (-€709 per patient [-€1628 to 236]) compared with the RMI, with an effectiveness of 89.6% (75.8-100). SR + SA showed the highest probability of being the most cost-effective when willingness-to-pay was <€350 per additional percentage of correctly diagnosed patients. The RMI had low cost-effectiveness probabilities (<3%) and was inferior to SA, SR + SA and LR2. Budget impact in the Netherlands compared with that of the RMI varied between a cost saving of €4.67 million for SR + SA and additional costs of €3.83 million when implementing ADNEX (cut-off: 10%). The results were robust when tested in sensitivity analyses. Although SA is the best strategy in terms of diagnostic accuracy, SR + SA might be preferred from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of Ovarian Cancer Prevention Strategies

Ovarian cancer remains to be the most lethal of all gynecologic malignancies. There is no effective screening test proven to reduce the mortality associated with this disease. Costs of treating ovarian cancer are substantial and among the highest of all cancer types. Therefore, it is essential to pursue strategies to prevent ovarian cancer that are cost-effective in the context of our health care system. There are 2 subgroups of women for whom ovarian cancer prevention strategies have been evaluated for effectiveness and costs: (1) general population at risk, and (2) BRCA mutation carriers with a high lifetime risk.