Budget Impact of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® Test in Patients with Early Primary Hormone-Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Node-Positive Breast Cancer in Germany

Background

Gene expression tests can inform decisions on whether to recommend or omit chemotherapy for patients with early HR+, HER2- breast cancer. The benefit of these tests is well established and fully reimbursed by sickness funds for lymph node-negative (pN0) patients in Germany. A budget impact model was built to evaluate the effect of using the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test also for node-positive (pN1: 1-3 positive lymph nodes) patients.

Methods

The prospective randomized clinical trial, RxPONDER, defined conditions (Recurrence Score result 0-25 for postmenopausal patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes) under which omitting chemotherapy does not significantly impact invasive disease-free survival with results currently reported for 5-year follow-up. The present budget impact model calculates average total cost per node-positive patient versus no testing from a sickness funds perspective, taking into account not only the budgetary impact of avoiding chemotherapy and associated side effects, but also the costs of treating those patients who develop distant metastasis. The stability of the results was investigated by probabilistic multivariate sensitivity analysis.

Results

After deducting testing cost, applying the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test yielded an average savings per node-positive patient of EUR 4,272. Without the test costs, the greatest savings resulted from reductions in direct treatment costs and costs arising from the treatment of chemotherapy-related side effects, which together averaged EUR 6,677. The targeted use of chemotherapy after testing also resulted in slightly lower costs for treatment of distant metastasis, if it did occur. The multivariate sensitivity analysis also almost exclusively resulted in cost savings.

Conclusion

Analogous to the pN0 situation, this budget impact model demonstrates that the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test can also reduce healthcare costs in Germany in treatment of node-positive (pN1: 1-3 positive lymph nodes) patients by minimizing both unnecessary chemotherapy and undertreatment. Additional benefits to patients would include reduced morbidity and improved quality of life for those patients who can safely avoid chemotherapy or undertreatment.

Use of the Gene Expression Test Prosigna® in Premenopausal Patients with HR+, HER2- Early Breast Cancer: Correlation of the Results with the Proliferation Marker Ki-67

Introduction

In hormone receptor-positive (ER+/PR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (EBC), gene expression tests such as the Prosigna are increasingly used since classic clinicopathological parameters and the proliferation factor Ki-67 often do not allow a definite therapy decision regarding an adjuvant chemotherapy. While the Prosigna test has been validated for postmenopausal patients, few data are available regarding its use in premenopausal patients. The present study compared the Prosigna test with the Ki-67 index in premenopausal patients.

Materials and Methods

Premenopausal patients with HR+ HER2-, pN0-1, G1-2 EBC were retrospectively enrolled (n = 55). The Prosigna assay was performed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples of surgical resection specimens. Ki-67 was reassessed in original diagnostic core needle biopsy specimens and defined as low, intermediate, or high with the threshold of <10%, 10-24%, ≥25%.

Results

According to Ki-67, patients were in the low (LR)-, intermediate (IR)-, and high-risk (HR) groups in 40%, 36%, and 24% of the cases. The Prosigna gene signature assay assessed the risk of recurrence as LR for 45% of the patients, IR for 35%, and HR for 20%. The most frequent intrinsic subtypes were luminal A in 73% and luminal B in 24% of the patients. A moderate correlation was found between Prosigna and Ki-67 scores with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.51. In the overall cohort, 47% of the Ki-67-based therapy decision would correspond to those based on the Prosigna score. After exclusion of IR patients, matching of low/low or high/high results was observed in 57% of the cases.

Conclusion

According to the present study, there is only limited concordance regarding the risk group stratification between Ki-67 and Prosigna-based risk assessment. The relevance and frequency of premenopausal breast cancer emphasizes the need for further evaluation of gene expression analyses in this setting and the correlation with classic clinicopathological parameters regarding therapy decision-making.

Budget impact of the Oncotype DX® test compared to other gene expression tests in patients with early breast cancer in Germany

PURPOSE

Gene expression tests can inform decisions on whether to recommend chemotherapy for patients with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer. The goal of this analysis was to compare treatment costs by an expanded budget impact model of reimbursed gene expression tests in Germany.

METHODS

A cost comparison was constructed as an expanded budget impact model to calculate average total costs per patient covered by public health insurance. Based on the strong clinical evidence from the prospective randomized controlled trial TAILORx including more than 10,000 patients with HR+ and node negative breast cancer, the assumption was made that the Oncotype DX® test accurately predicts chemotherapy benefit and clinical outcomes. For the further reimbursed tests (EndoPredict®, MammaPrint®, Prosigna®), results from comparative studies - aligned with prognosis studies - as analyzed in IQWiG Rapid Report D19-01 were applied.

RESULTS

The use of the Oncotype DX test led to estimated average savings per patient of 2,500 € vs. EndoPredict, 1,936 € vs. MammaPrint, and 649 € vs. Prosigna. Savings were achieved by reduction of unnecessary chemotherapy use, a consequence of false-positive test results (EndoPredict 73%, MammaPrint 42%, Prosigna 20%). False-negative test results (EndoPredict 5%, MammaPrint 22%, Prosigna 49%) reduced necessary chemotherapies, which initially results in cost savings, but may lead to increased long-term costs associated with management of progressive disease.

CONCLUSION

The results from this model suggest that the use of the Oncotype DX test reduces the cost of health care in Germany making it the most cost effective test compared to the further tests.

Budget impact analysis of gene expression tests to aid therapy decisions for breast cancer patients in Germany

OBJECTIVES

Many women with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer may not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Gene expression tests can reduce chemotherapy over- and undertreatment by providing prognostic information on the likelihood of recurrence and, with Oncotype DX, predictive information on chemotherapy benefit. These tests are currently not reimbursed by German healthcare payers. An analysis was conducted to evaluate the budget impact of gene expression tests in Germany.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Costs of gene expression tests and medical and non-medical costs associated with treatment were assessed from healthcare payer and societal perspectives. Costs were estimated from data collected at a university hospital and were combined with decision impact data for Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna and EndoPredict (EPclin). Changes in chemotherapy use and budget impact were evaluated over 1 year for 20,000 women.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy was associated with substantial annual costs of EUR 19,003 and EUR 84,412 per therapy from the healthcare payer and societal perspective, respectively. Compared with standard care, only Oncotype DX was associated with cost savings to healthcare payers and society (EUR 5.9 million and EUR 253 million, respectively). Scenario analysis showed that both women at high clinical but low genomic risk and low clinical but high genomic risk were important contributors to costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncotype DX was the only gene expression test that was estimated to reduce costs versus standard care in Germany. The reimbursement of Oncotype DX testing in standard clinical practice in Germany should be considered.