Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States

IMPORTANCE: Genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in unselected women offers an opportunity to prevent cancer morbidity and mortality, but the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of such screening have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the lifetim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guzauskas, Gregory F., Garbett, Shawn, Zhou, Zilu, Spencer, Scott J., Smith, Hadley S., Hao, Jing, Hassen, Dina, Snyder, Susan R., Graves, John A., Peterson, Josh F., Williams, Marc S., Veenstra, David L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Medical Association 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7596578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33119106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22874
_version_ 1783602148155588608
author Guzauskas, Gregory F.
Garbett, Shawn
Zhou, Zilu
Spencer, Scott J.
Smith, Hadley S.
Hao, Jing
Hassen, Dina
Snyder, Susan R.
Graves, John A.
Peterson, Josh F.
Williams, Marc S.
Veenstra, David L.
author_facet Guzauskas, Gregory F.
Garbett, Shawn
Zhou, Zilu
Spencer, Scott J.
Smith, Hadley S.
Hao, Jing
Hassen, Dina
Snyder, Susan R.
Graves, John A.
Peterson, Josh F.
Williams, Marc S.
Veenstra, David L.
author_sort Guzauskas, Gregory F.
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: Genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in unselected women offers an opportunity to prevent cancer morbidity and mortality, but the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of such screening have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the lifetime incremental incidence of HBOC and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of HBOC genomic screening in an unselected population vs family history–based testing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this study conducted from October 27, 2017, to May 3, 2020, a decision analytic Markov model was developed that included health states for precancer, for risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), for earlier- and later-stage HBOC, after cancer, and for death. A complimentary cascade testing module was also developed to estimate outcomes in first-degree relatives. Age-specific RRM and RRSO uptake probabilities were estimated from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative and published sources. Parameters including RRM and RRSO effectiveness, variant-specific cancer risk, costs, and utilities were derived from published sources. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate model assumptions and uncertainty. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Lifetime cancer incidence, QALYs, life-years, and direct medical costs for genomic screening in an unselected population vs family history–based testing only were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the difference in cost between strategies divided by the difference in QALYs between strategies. Earlier-stage and later-stage cancer cases prevented and total cancer cases prevented were also calculated. RESULTS: The model found that population screening of 30-year-old women was associated with 75 (95% credible range [CR], 60-90) fewer overall cancer cases and 288 QALYs (95% CR, 212-373 QALYs) gained per 100 000 women screened, at an incremental cost of $25 million (95% CR, $21 millon to $30 million) vs family history–based testing; the ICER was $87 700 (78% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY). In contrast, population screening of 45-year-old women was associated with 24 (95% CR, 18-29) fewer cancer cases and 97 QALYs (95% CR, 66-130 QALYs) gained per 100 000 women screened, at an incremental cost of $26 million (95% CR, $22 million to $30 million); the ICER was $268 200 (0% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY). A scenario analysis without cascade testing increased the ICER to $92 600 for 30-year-old women and $354 500 for 45-year-old women. A scenario analysis assuming a 5% absolute decrease in mammography screening in women without a variant was associated with the potential for net harm (−90 QALYs per 100 000 women screened; 95% CR, −180 to 10 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this study suggest that population HBOC screening may be cost-effective among younger women but not among older women. Cascade testing of first-degree relatives added a modest improvement in clinical and economic value. The potential for harm conferred by inappropriate reduction in mammography among noncarriers should be quantified.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7596578
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher American Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75965782020-11-05 Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States Guzauskas, Gregory F. Garbett, Shawn Zhou, Zilu Spencer, Scott J. Smith, Hadley S. Hao, Jing Hassen, Dina Snyder, Susan R. Graves, John A. Peterson, Josh F. Williams, Marc S. Veenstra, David L. JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: Genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in unselected women offers an opportunity to prevent cancer morbidity and mortality, but the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of such screening have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the lifetime incremental incidence of HBOC and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of HBOC genomic screening in an unselected population vs family history–based testing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this study conducted from October 27, 2017, to May 3, 2020, a decision analytic Markov model was developed that included health states for precancer, for risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), for earlier- and later-stage HBOC, after cancer, and for death. A complimentary cascade testing module was also developed to estimate outcomes in first-degree relatives. Age-specific RRM and RRSO uptake probabilities were estimated from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative and published sources. Parameters including RRM and RRSO effectiveness, variant-specific cancer risk, costs, and utilities were derived from published sources. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate model assumptions and uncertainty. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Lifetime cancer incidence, QALYs, life-years, and direct medical costs for genomic screening in an unselected population vs family history–based testing only were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the difference in cost between strategies divided by the difference in QALYs between strategies. Earlier-stage and later-stage cancer cases prevented and total cancer cases prevented were also calculated. RESULTS: The model found that population screening of 30-year-old women was associated with 75 (95% credible range [CR], 60-90) fewer overall cancer cases and 288 QALYs (95% CR, 212-373 QALYs) gained per 100 000 women screened, at an incremental cost of $25 million (95% CR, $21 millon to $30 million) vs family history–based testing; the ICER was $87 700 (78% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY). In contrast, population screening of 45-year-old women was associated with 24 (95% CR, 18-29) fewer cancer cases and 97 QALYs (95% CR, 66-130 QALYs) gained per 100 000 women screened, at an incremental cost of $26 million (95% CR, $22 million to $30 million); the ICER was $268 200 (0% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY). A scenario analysis without cascade testing increased the ICER to $92 600 for 30-year-old women and $354 500 for 45-year-old women. A scenario analysis assuming a 5% absolute decrease in mammography screening in women without a variant was associated with the potential for net harm (−90 QALYs per 100 000 women screened; 95% CR, −180 to 10 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this study suggest that population HBOC screening may be cost-effective among younger women but not among older women. Cascade testing of first-degree relatives added a modest improvement in clinical and economic value. The potential for harm conferred by inappropriate reduction in mammography among noncarriers should be quantified. American Medical Association 2020-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7596578/ /pubmed/33119106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22874 Text en Copyright 2020 Guzauskas GF et al. JAMA Network Open. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Guzauskas, Gregory F.
Garbett, Shawn
Zhou, Zilu
Spencer, Scott J.
Smith, Hadley S.
Hao, Jing
Hassen, Dina
Snyder, Susan R.
Graves, John A.
Peterson, Josh F.
Williams, Marc S.
Veenstra, David L.
Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_full Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_short Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States
title_sort cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the united states
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7596578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33119106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22874
work_keys_str_mv AT guzauskasgregoryf costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT garbettshawn costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT zhouzilu costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT spencerscottj costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT smithhadleys costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT haojing costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT hassendina costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT snydersusanr costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT gravesjohna costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT petersonjoshf costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT williamsmarcs costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates
AT veenstradavidl costeffectivenessofpopulationwidegenomicscreeningforhereditarybreastandovariancancerintheunitedstates