Search

Background and Objectives: The 21-gene assay (the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score ® test) estimates the 10-year risk of distant recurrence in hormone receptor positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions. The cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay compared against standard clinical-pathological risk tools alone for HR+/HER2- early-stage breast cancer was assessed using an economic model informed by evidence from randomized controlled trials., Materials and Methods: A cost-effectiveness model consisted of a decision-tree to stratify patients according to their Recurrence Score (RS) results and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, followed by a Markov component to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes of the chosen treatment. Distributions of patients and distant recurrence probabilities were derived from the TAILORx (N0) and RxPONDER (N1) trials. The model was evaluated from a healthcare payer and societal perspective. Endocrine therapy and chemotherapy use were informed using clinical expert opinion to reflect US clinical practice and were combined with Medicare drug costs (2021) to estimate the cost of treatment. Societal costs included lost productivity and patient out-of-pocket costs obtained from literature., Results: The Oncotype DX test generated more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (N0: 0.25; N1: 0.08) at a lower cost (N0: -$13,395; N1: -$2526) compared to clinical-pathological risk alone from a societal cost perspective. The overall conclusions from the model did not change when considering a payer perspective. The main cost drivers were avoidance of distant recurrence for N0 (-$12,578), and the cost of adjuvant chemotherapy for N1 (-$2133). Lost productivity had a major impact in the societal perspective analysis (N0: -$4607; N1: -$1586)., Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions based on the RS result led to more life year gains and lower healthcare costs (dominant) compared to using clinical-pathological risk factors alone among patients with HR+/HER2- N0 and N1 early-stage breast cancer., Competing Interests: Vladislav Berdunov and Ewan Laws: employee of Putnam, who have received funding from Exact Sciences. Gebra Cuyun Carter, Christy Russell, Sara Campbell: employee and stockholder of Exact Sciences. Roger Luo has no conflicts of interest to declare. Yara Abdou and Jeremy Force: served as paid consultant for Exact Sciences., (© 2024 Berdunov et al.)

Objective: The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice., Methods: A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to evaluate test choice in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Treatment pathways were based on NCCN guidelines and medical expert opinion. Inputs were derived from published literature. Annual economic results and lifetime clinical results with OncoExTra testing were projected per-tested-patient and compared with single gene testing and no testing. Separately, results were estimated for a US health plan without the OncoExTra test and with its use in 5% of patients., Results: Compared with no genomic testing, OncoExTra test use increased costs by $4,915 per patient; however, 82%-92% of individuals across tumour types were identified as eligible for targeted therapy or a clinical trial. Compared with single gene testing, OncoExTra test use decreased costs by $9,966 per-patient-tested while increasing use of approved or investigational targeted therapies by 20%. When considering a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 858 patients were eligible for genomic testing. Using the OncoExTra test in 5% of those eligible, per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.003, ranging from cost-savings of $0.026 in NSCLC patients to a $0.009 increase in prostate cancer patients. Cost-savings were driven by reduced treatment costs with increased clinical trial enrolment and reduced direct and indirect medical costs associated with targeted treatments., Limitations: Limitations include the required simplifications in modelling complex conditions that may not fully reflect evolving real-world testing and treatment patterns., Conclusions: Compared to single-gene testing, results indicate that using next generation sequencing test such as OncoExTra identified more actionable alterations, leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs.