Willingness to pay for cancer prevention

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cost-effectiveness of early cancer surveillance for patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Patients with germline TP53 pathogenic variants (Li-Fraumeni syndrome [LFS]) are at extremely high lifetime risk of developing cancer. Recent data suggest that tumor surveillance for patients with LFS may improve survival through early cancer detection. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a cancer surveillance strategy for patients with LFS compared with those whose tumors present clinically.

METHODS

A Markov decision analytic model was developed from a third-party payer perspective to estimate cost-effectiveness of routine cancer surveillance over a patient's lifetime. The model consisted of four possible health states: no cancer, cancer, post-cancer survivorship, and death. Model outcomes were costs (2015 United States Dollars [USD]), effectiveness (life years [LY] gained), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; change in cost/LY gained). One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

The model showed a mean cost of $46 496 and $117 102 and yielded 23 and 27 LY for the nonsurveillance and surveillance strategies, respectively. The ICER for early cancer surveillance versus no surveillance was $17 125 per additional LY gained. At the commonly accepted willingness to pay threshold of $100 000/life-year gained, surveillance had a 98% probability of being the most cost-effective strategy for early cancer detection in this high-risk population.

CONCLUSIONS

Presymptomatic cancer surveillance is cost-effective for patients with germline pathogenic variants in TP53. Lack of insurance coverage or reimbursement in this population may have significant consequences and leads to undetected cancers presenting in later stages of disease with worse clinical outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of whole-mount pathology processing for patients with early breast cancer undergoing breast conservation

BACKGROUND

Obtaining accurate histopathologic detail for breast lumpectomy specimens is challenging because of sampling and loss of three-dimensional conformational features with conventional processing. The whole-mount (wm) technique is a novel method of serial pathologic sectioning designed to optimize cross-sectional visualization of resected specimens and determination of margin status.

METHODS

Using a Markov chain cohort simulation cost-effectiveness model, we compared conventional processing with wm technique for breast lumpectomies. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the perspective of the Canadian health care system and compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (icers) for cost per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) over a 10-year time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model with willingness-to-pay (wtp) thresholds of $0-$100,000. Costs are reported in adjusted 2014 Canadian dollars, discounted at a rate of 3%.

RESULTS

Compared with conventional processing, wm processing is more costly ($19,989 vs. $18,427) but generates 0.03 more qalys over 10 years. The icer is $45,414, indicating that this additional amount is required for each additional qaly obtained. The model was robust to all variance in parameters, with the prevalence of positive margins accounting for most of the model's variability.

CONCLUSIONS

After a wtp threshold of $45,414, wm processing becomes cost-effective and ultimately generates fewer recurrences and marginally more qalys over time. Excellent baseline outcomes for the current treatment of breast cancer mean that incremental differences in survival are small. However, the overall benefit of the wm technique should be considered in the context of achieving improved accuracy and not just enhancements in clinical effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of aspirin adjuvant therapy in early stage colorectal cancer in older patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Recent observational studies showed that post-operative aspirin use reduces cancer relapse and death in the earliest stages of colorectal cancer. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aspirin as an adjuvant therapy in Stage I and II colorectal cancer patients aged 65 years and older.

METHODS

Two five-state Markov models were constructed separately for Stage I and II colorectal cancer using TreeAge Pro 2014. Two hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 individuals at a starting age of 65 years and with colorectal cancer in remission were put through the models separately. Cost-effectiveness of aspirin was evaluated against no treatment (Stage I and II) and capecitabine (Stage II) over a 20-year period from the United States societal perspective. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses and multivariable Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses (PSA) were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case analyses, aspirin was cheaper and more effective compared to other comparators in both stages. Sensitivity analyses showed that no treatment and capecitabine (Stage II only) can be cost-effective alternatives if the utility of taking aspirin is below 0.909, aspirin's annual fatal adverse event probability exceeds 0.57%, aspirin's relative risk of disease progression is 0.997 or more, or when capecitabine's relative risk of disease progression is less than 0.228. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses (PSA) further showed that aspirin could be cost-effective 50% to 80% of the time when the willingness-to-pay threshold was varied from USD 20,000 to USD 100,000.

CONCLUSION

Even with a modest treatment benefit, aspirin is likely to be cost-effective in Stage I and II colorectal cancer, thus suggesting a potential unique role in secondary prevention in this group of patients.

Leuprolide acetate 1-, 3- and 6-monthly depot formulations in androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer in nine European countries: evidence review and economic evaluation

Objective

Leuprolide is an established luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist used as first-line treatment in advanced prostate cancer. As different formulations and dosing schedules are likely to have economic implications, we aimed to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and costs in nine European countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal.

Methods

Database searches identified 13 clinical trials of leuprolide 1- (1 M), 3- (3 M) and 6-monthly (6 M). Only data on leuprolide with Atrigel were compared for all three formulations, which had the same efficacy, safety, and adherence. Cost-minimization analysis accounting for cost of Eligard®, specialist consultations, and diagnostics during up to 12 months follow-up was conducted. The perspective was that of public payers.

Results

No significant differences were observed in the percentages of intention-to-treat patients achieving testosterone levels ≤ 50 ng/dL following treatment with Eligard® 1 M (93.3%), 3 M (98.3%), and 6 M (97.3%) (P > 0.05), and adverse event profiles of the three formulations were comparable. Overall, 6 M was the least expensive, with average total annual costs from €788 (Belgium) to €1839 (Portugal). The 3 M option was between 2.5% (Hungary) and 37.6% (Belgium) more expensive than 6 M; 1 M formulation was the most expensive, with costs 15.5% and 151.6% more expensive than 6 M for those countries, respectively. The 3 M option was 11.2%–45.3% less expensive than 1 M. Total costs were associated with frequency of visits for injection and monitoring. The 1 M required twelve visits, 3 M 4.4–4.8 visits, and 6 M 2.1–2.3 visits. Up to 50% additional visits could be funded with the savings resulting from switching eligible patients from 1 M and 3 M to 6 M. Results were stable in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Eligard® formulations offer comparable efficacy and safety, but different dosing schedules require different number of visits. The 6 M formulation offers the greatest cost savings and should be considered the treatment of choice in eligible patients in Europe.

Parental willingness to pay for child safety seats in Mashad, Iran

BACKGROUND

Iran has one of the highest rates of road traffic crash death rates throughout the world and road traffic injuries are the leading cause of years of life lost in the country. Using child car safety seats is not mandatory by law in Iran. The purpose of this research was to determine the parental willingness to pay (WTP) for child restraints in Mashad, the second most populated city in Iran with one of the highest rates of road traffic-related deaths.

METHODS

We surveyed 590 car-owner parents of kindergarten children who were willing to participate in the study in the year 2009. We asked them about the maximum amount of money they were willing to pay for car safety seats using contingent valuation method.

RESULTS

The mean age of children was 33.5 months. The median parental WTP for CSS was about $15. Considering the real price of CSSs in Iran, only 12 percent of responders could be categorized as being willing to pay for it. Family income level was the main predictor of being willing to pay.

CONCLUSIONS

The median parental WTP was much lower than the actual price of the safety seats, and those who were of lower socio-economic class were less willing to pay. Interventions to increase low-income families' access to child safety seats such as providing free of charge or subsidized seats, renting or health insurance coverage should be considered.

How much colonoscopy screening should be recommended to individuals with various degrees of family history of colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) are at increased risk for CRC. Current screening recommendations for these individuals are based on expert opinion. The authors investigated optimal screening strategies for individuals with various degrees of family history of CRC based on a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

The MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model was used to estimate costs and effects of CRC screening strategies, varying by the age at which screening was started and stopped and by screening interval. The authors defined 4 risk groups, characterized by the number of affected first-degree relatives and their age at CRC diagnosis. For all risk groups, the optimal screening strategy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $50,000 per life-year gained.

RESULTS

The optimal screening strategy for individuals with 1 first-degree relative diagnosed after age 50 years was 6 colonoscopies every 5 years starting at age 50 years, compared with 4 colonoscopies every 7 years starting at age 50 years for average risk individuals. The optimal strategy had 10 colonoscopies every 4 years for individuals with 1 first-degree relative diagnosed before age 50 years, 13 colonoscopies every 3 years for individuals with 2 or more first-degree relatives diagnosed after age 50 years, and 15 colonoscopies every 3 years for individuals with 2 or more first-degree relatives of whom at least 1 was diagnosed before age 50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal screening strategy varies considerably with the number of affected first-degree relatives and their age of diagnosis. Shorter screening intervals than the currently recommended 5 years may be appropriate for the highest risk individuals.

Regulation of NF-E2-related factor 2 signaling for cancer chemoprevention: antioxidant coupled with antiinflammatory

Cancer chemoprevention is a process of using either natural or synthetic compounds to reduce the risk of developing cancer. Observations that NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2)-deficient mice lack response to some chemopreventive agents point to the important role of Nrf2 in chemoprevention. Nrf2 is a member of basic-leucine zipper transcription factor family and has been shown to regulate gene expression by binding to a response element, antioxidant responsive element. It is generally believed that activation of Nrf2 signaling is an adaptive response to the environmental and endogenous stresses. Under homeostatic conditions, Nrf2 is suppressed by association with Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (Keap1), but is stimulated upon exposure to oxidative or electrophilic stress. Once activated, Nrf2 translocates into nuclei and upregulates a group of genes that act in concert to combat oxidative stress. Nrf2 is also shown to have protective function against inflammation, a pathological process that could contribute to carcinogenesis. In this review, we will discuss the current progress in the study of Nrf2 signaling, in particular, the mechanisms of Nrf2 activation by chemopreventive agents. We will also discuss some of the potential caveats of Nrf2 in cancer treatment and future opportunity and challenges on regulation of Nrf2-mediated antioxidant and antiinflammatory signaling in the context of cancer prevention.