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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |