The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Olaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of BRCA germline testing to inform olaparib treatment in mCRPC.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment compared to standard care without testing from an Australian health payer perspective. The analysis applied a decision tree to indicate the germline testing or no testing strategy. A Markov multi-state transition approach was used for patients within each strategy. The model had a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5 percent. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Compared to standard care, BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU$7,841 and a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was AU$143,613 per QALY. The probability of BRCA testing-guided treatment being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$100,000 per QALY was around 2 percent; however, the likelihood for cost-effectiveness increased to 66 percent if the price of olaparib was reduced by 30 percent.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

Cost-effectiveness of DPYD Genotyping Prior to Fluoropyrimidine-based Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy substantially reduces recurrence and mortality after resection of stage 3 colon cancer. While standard doses of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine are safe for most patients, the risk of severe toxicity is increased for the approximately 6% of patients with dihydropyimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency caused by pathogenic DPYD gene variants. Pre-treatment screening for pathogenic DPYD gene variants reduces severe toxicity but has not been widely adopted in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of DPYD genotyping prior to fluoropyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for stage 3 colon cancer, covering the c.1129-5923C>G (HapB3), c.1679T>G (*13), c.1905+1G>A (*2A), and c.2846A>T gene variants. We used a Markov model with a 5-year horizon, taking a United States healthcare perspective. Simulated patients with pathogenic DPYD gene variants received reduced-dose fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for DPYD genotyping.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening for DPD deficiency, DPYD genotyping increased per-patient costs by $78 and improved survival by 0.0038 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), leading to an ICER of $20,506/QALY. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, The ICER exceeded $50,000 per QALY when the cost of the DPYD genotyping assay was greater than $286. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY DPYD genotyping was preferred to no screening in 96.2% of iterations.

CONCLUSION

Among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for stage 3 colon cancer, screening for DPD deficiency with DPYD genotyping is a cost-effective strategy for preventing infrequent but severe and sometimes fatal toxicities of fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy.

Effectiveness of a Lay Navigation Program in an Academic Cancer Center

PURPOSE

A navigation program with lay navigators that targets patients with cancer who are receiving multiple treatment modalities was launched with the goal of improving care coordination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Pseudo-randomization and mixed methods were used to evaluate the program: patients with even-numbered medical records were assigned to navigation help, and patients with odd-numbered medical records made up the control group. Eligible patients were those scheduled to receive at least two treatment modalities. Intent-to-treat, as-treated, and high-user cohorts with propensity matched controls were used to assess the outcomes: patient experience, emergency room (ER) use, and unplanned hospitalizations. In-depth patient interviews explored how and why patients interacted with the navigator program and overall patient experience.

RESULTS

Marginally lower incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for both ER visits (IRR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.36) and unplanned hospitalizations (IRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.43) occurred in as-treated patients who used navigation help and who lived within 50 miles of Stanford Hospital compared with their matched controls; other cohort analyses had similar results. Survey scores for patients who received help with navigation did not differ significantly from those for corresponding controls in any of the analytic cohorts. Patient interviews suggested that the navigation program had low visibility among patients and that lay navigators drove use of the program. Patient-reported positive experiences included getting help with complex scheduling, alleviating anxiousness through access to information and educational resources, and getting help with activities outside traditional health care; negative experiences stemmed from having expectations that were not met.

CONCLUSION

Marginally lower rates of ER visits and unplanned hospitalizations for a small subset of patients, low penetration of the navigation program, and mixed comments from patient interviews suggest that a navigation program with a broad scope that targets a large population is not effective. Modifying the program to have a narrower scope of practice may help better target anxious or high-risk patients.