Search

Background: Our objective was to investigate why early studies regarding adoption of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay did not show an initial reduction in the number of patients with breast cancer receiving real-world chemotherapy., Materials and Methods: We addressed 2 sources of confounding suspected in previous studies: (1) the early time frame during the initial adoption phase of the RS assay, and (2) suspected selective, increased administration to patients more likely to have been chemotherapy candidates. To address selective use during initial adoption, we used updated SEER-Medicare data from 2004 and 2011. To address individual selection bias, we examined whether RS test utilization was negatively associated with rates of local chemotherapy use assessed at the hospital referral region level using conventional ordinary least squares and instrumental variable approaches to adjust for selection bias., Results: A total of 26,009 patients met inclusion criteria. Assay use was associated with a decrease in absolute percentage use of chemotherapy of 4.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2%-5.7%), which was even more pronounced in sensitivity analyses limited to later study years (2008-2011), with a decrease of 6.8% (95% CI, 5.3%-8.3%). Instrumental variable models yielded similar point estimates but were insufficiently powered to draw conclusions., Conclusion: Receipt of the 21-gene assay was associated with decreased utilization of chemotherapy by 2008., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The number of breast cancer (BC) cases is growing worldwide, being most frequently diagnosed in the early-setting. Mammaprint™ is a 70-gene-expression signature, originally designed for selecting early BC patients with low risk of developing metastasis, so that they could be spared adjuvant chemotherapy. Its use as a prognostic biomarker has been extensively validated, both retrospectively and prospectively. However, its value as a predictive tool and as a clinically useful tool remains controversial. This review will describe how the test works, its application in the clinic and its limitations. Cost-effectiveness studies will be summarized. Finally, we will provide a perspective on the use of Mammaprint in the near future, as a valuable tool for personalizing the treatment of early BC patients.

Purpose The 21-gene assay Oncotype Dx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) test is used to aid the decision about chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who received endocrine therapy. Economic studies to support test adoption used decision-analytic models with assumptions and data derived from disparate sources. The objective was to evaluate whether the 21-gene assay test resulted in an overall cost expense or saving to the health system. Patients and Methods One thousand participants enrolled in a field evaluation study, were linked to population-level health system administrative databases, and were observed for 20 months. The cost for the cohort, which included the cost of the test, subsequent treatments received, and health care encounters, was determined. The cost in the absence of the test was compared with the pretest recommendation about chemotherapy from the field study for a base case and under scenarios that reflected different adjuvant chemotherapy use. Overall health system costs and incremental costs were calculated. Results The 21-gene assay resulted in a net decrease in chemotherapy use of 23%. For the base case incremental analysis, the actual overall health system cost of this cohort, including the cost of 21-gene assay, was $29.2 million compared with $26.2 million in the absence of the test-an increase of $3.1 million. For three of the four scenario analyses, the actual overall cost to the health system exceeded the estimated cost in the absence of the test. Results showed that, when at least half of the population received adjuvant chemotherapy, the cost increased to $30.2 million. Conclusion The use of real-world administrative data showed that, despite lower rates of chemotherapy use, the 21-gene assay test results in an overall incremental cost to the health care system in the short-term under most assumptions.

Objectives: Value-based payment reforms shift cost-containment responsibilities to the physician. Although gene expression profiling (GEP) utilizing a 21-gene panel among patients with early-stage, axillary lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, HER2/neu oncogene-negative breast cancer is able to identify a cohort that may achieve excellent outcomes without adjuvant chemotherapy, high up-front costs (list price, $4175) could dissuade usage., Study Design: Retrospective review of consecutive patients with breast cancer treated at a single cancer center., Methods: Chart review of 227 patients 70 years or younger with outpatient costs (ie, drug average sales price, reagent costs, physician charges) during first 6 months of treatment., Results: Of these patients, 68% underwent GEP, with 52%, 43%, and 5% having low, intermediate, and high recurrence risk scores, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was utilized less in genomically profiled cohorts (19% vs 29%; P = .08) and was consistent with recommendations of the recurrence scores. The mean 6-month outpatient costs were $24,955 with adjuvant chemotherapy and $2654 with hormonal therapy. Patients with stage II cancer undergoing GEP received adjuvant chemotherapy at a lower frequency (28.6% vs 86.7%), but patients with stage I cancer who underwent testing were slightly more likely to receive chemotherapy (15.8% vs 14%) because the test identified patients with higher-risk tumors. Universal GEP testing of patients with stage II cancer would have resulted in net savings of $11,494 per patient inclusive of test cost; stage I testing would have increased costs by $4505. Similar trends for grade 2/3 tumors (-$2394) and grade 1 tumors (+$6047) were noted., Conclusions: Universal GEP testing of women 70 years or younger with stage II or grade 2/3 lymph node-negative breast cancers would result in lower outpatient costs, inclusive of the diagnostic test, within the first 6-month episode of care.

Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that women who carry gene variants that confer substantial risk for breast cancer consider risk-reduction strategies, that is, enhanced surveillance (breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammography) or prophylactic surgery. Pathogenic variants can be detected in women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer syndromes by multigene panel testing., Objectives: To investigate whether using a seven-gene test to identify women who should consider risk-reduction strategies could cost-effectively increase life expectancy., Methods: We estimated effectiveness and lifetime costs from a payer perspective for two strategies in two hypothetical cohorts of women (40-year-old and 50-year-old cohorts) who meet the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined family history criteria for multigene testing. The two strategies were the usual test strategy for variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and the seven-gene test strategy for variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, CDH1, STK11, and PALB2. Women found to have a pathogenic variant were assumed to undergo either prophylactic surgery or enhanced surveillance., Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the seven-gene test strategy compared with the BRCA1/2 test strategy was $42,067 per life-year gained or $69,920 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the 50-year-old cohort and $23,734 per life-year gained or $48,328 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the 40-year-old cohort. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the seven-gene test strategy cost less than $100,000 per life-year gained in 95.7% of the trials for the 50-year-old cohort., Conclusions: Testing seven breast cancer-associated genes, followed by risk-reduction management, could cost-effectively improve life expectancy for women at risk of hereditary breast cancer., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Tumor gene expression profiling (GEP) can be used to predict recurrence risk and the potential benefit of breast cancer treatment. Adoption of GEP among privately insured patients has not been well studied. Our objectives were to characterize trends in GEP use and to evaluate per-use patient and health plan payments from 2006 to 2012., Methods: We used Truven Health Analytics MarketScan administrative claims database to examine GEP testing among women with breast cancer from 2006 to 2012 (N = 154,883). We estimated trends in the proportion of women who received GEP using segmented regression. We summarized average reimbursement for GEP, including insurer payments and patient out-of-pocket payments., Results: Overall, 18,575 women received GEP. The average age was 53.6 years, and most were enrolled in a preferred provider organization health plan. The adjusted proportion of women with breast cancer who received GEP grew from 2.2% in 2006 to 18.8% in 2012 (adjusted risk ratio, 8.4; 95% CI, 7.6 to 9.3). Out-of-pocket costs to the patient ranged from $0 to $4,752. Most patients paid nothing for GEP (median, $0; interquartile ratio, $4). Mean patient out-of-pocket costs were $175 (standard deviation [SD], $484). Private-insurer reimbursed amounts for GEP increased annually from an average of $3,125 (SD, $1,523) in 2006 to $3,680 (SD, $835) by 2012., Conclusion: GEP has rapidly diffused into clinical practice. Reimbursements by insurers have increased slowly, and average out-of-pocket costs to patients have decreased, seemingly driven by improved coverage for testing over time. As more genetic tests become available, it will be important to understand how these technologies will affect cancer care costs across the US health care system., (Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Cost-effectiveness analysis of MammaPrint(®) (70-gene signature) in the diagnosis of early breast cancer as a prognosis assay to study the risk of tumor recurrence to administer adjuvant chemotherapy., Methods: Markov model assuming a cohort of 60-year-old women with breast cancer. Treatment costs and effects were assessed by comparing the 5-year, 10-year and lifetime risk of recurrence using Adjuvant! Online(®) (online algorithm), 70-gene signature or Oncotype DX(®) (21-gene assay)., Results: 70-gene signature showed a life expectancy of 23.55 years at lifetime. Life expectancy was lower for 21-gene assay and online algorithm, with associated quality-adjusted life year gains up to 0.23 and 0.75, respectively, with 70-gene signature. At year 5, the mean cost of 21-gene assay, 70-gene signature and online algorithm was €7100, €6380 and €4580, respectively. 70-gene signature was dominant versus 21-gene assay at any time horizon and would be cost-effective from year 7 versus online algorithm (lifetime: €1457 per quality-adjusted life years gained)., Conclusions: 70-gene signature was a dominant strategy over 21-gene assay and was highly cost-effective versus online algorithm.

Background: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) information, and in particular cost-effectiveness data is needed to guide decisions, preferably already in early stages of technological development. However, at that moment there is usually a high degree of uncertainty, because evidence is limited and different development paths are still possible. We developed a multi-parameter framework to assess dynamic aspects of a technology -still in development-, by means of scenario drafting to determine the effects, costs and cost-effectiveness of possible future diffusion patterns. Secondly, we explored the value of this method on the case of the clinical implementation of the 70-gene signature for breast cancer, a gene expression profile for selecting patients who will benefit most from chemotherapy., Methods: To incorporate process-uncertainty, ten possible scenarios regarding the introduction of the 70-gene signature were drafted with European experts. Out of 5 most likely scenarios, 3 drivers of diffusion (non-compliance, technical failure, and uptake) were quantitatively integrated in a decision-analytical model. For these scenarios, the cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature expressed in Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) was compared to clinical guidelines, calculated from the past (2005) until the future (2020)., Results: In 2005 the ICER was €1,9 million/quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY), meaning that the 70-gene signature was not yet cost-effective compared to the current clinical guideline. The ICER for the 70-gene signature improved over time with a range of €1,9 million to €26,145 in 2010 and €1,9 million to €11,123/QALY in 2020 depending on the separate scenario used. From 2010, the 70-gene signature should be cost-effective, based on the combined scenario. The uptake-scenario had strongest influence on the cost-effectiveness., Conclusions: When optimal diffusion of a technology is sought, incorporating process-uncertainty by means of scenario drafting into a decision model may reveal unanticipated developments and can demonstrate a range of possible cost-effectiveness outcomes. The effect of scenarios give additional information on the speed with cost effectiveness might be reached and thus provide a more realistic picture for policy makers, opinion leaders and manufacturers.

The use of taxanes to treat node-positive (N+) breast cancer patients is associated with heterogeneous benefits as well as with morbidity and financial costs. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of using gene expression profiling to guide decision-making about chemotherapy, and to discuss the coverage/reimbursement issues involved. Retrospective data on 246 patients included in a randomised trial (PACS01) were analyzed. Tumours were genotyped using DNA microarrays (189-gene signature), and patients were classified depending on whether or not they were likely to benefit from chemotherapy regimens without taxanes. Standard anthracyclines plus taxane chemotherapy (strategy AT) was compared with the innovative strategy based on genomic testing (GEN). Statistical analyses involved bootstrap methods and sensitivity analyses. The AT and GEN strategies yielded similar 5-year metastasis-free survival rates. In comparison with AT, GEN was cost-effective when genomic testing costs were less than 2,090€. With genomic testing costs higher than 2,919€, AT was cost-effective. Considering a 30% decrease in the price of docetaxel (the patent rights being about to expire), GEN was cost-effective if the cost of genomic testing was in the 0€-1,139€, range; whereas AT was cost-effective if genomic testing costs were higher than 1,891€. The use of gene expression profiling to guide decision-making about chemotherapy for N+ breast cancer patients is potentially cost-effective. Since genomic testing and the drugs targeted in these tests yield greater well-being than the sum of those resulting from separate use, questions arise about how to deal with extra well-being in decision-making about coverage/reimbursement.

Objective: Oncotype DX, a 21-gene assay, was clinically validated as a predictor of 10-year recurrence-free survival and treatment response in patients with early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive, lymph-node negative breast cancer (ER+ LN- ESBC). This study determined "real-life" alteration in treatment decision and economic implications of Oncotype DX use in women with ER+ LN- ESBC., Methods: Clalit Health Services (CHS, Tel Aviv, Israel), determined the proportion of women in low, intermediate and high-risk groups in the first 368 Oncotype DX assays performed, the change of adjuvant therapy recommendation following the recurrence (RS) results from Oncotype DX use, and associated chemotherapy costs. The risk of recurrence-free survival was derived from prespecified statistical protocols of NCI-sponsored trials conducted by NSABP (B-14 and B-20). Utilities were literature based. A 3% discount rate was employed., Results: Oncotype DX altered recommendations of 40% of patients, 84% of whom were changed from hormone + chemotherapy to hormonal therapy alone. Among high-risk women, 8% switched actual treatment from hormonal therapy to hormone + chemotherapy. By reducing the chemotherapy disutility, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) increased 0.170 years. Use of Oncotype DX costs $10,770 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that risk reduction in the low-risk population, the cost of adverse events, and the relative risk reduction of recurrence were the most influential variables., Conclusion: Oncotype DX resulted in net QALY gain and increased overall costs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10,770. For CHS, Oncotype DX represents an effective and affordable approach to favorably affect the lives of women with ESBC.

Objective: The 21-gene expression assay may support the decision regarding use of chemotherapy in early breast cancer. We sought to investigate the potential impact of incorporating the 21-gene expression assay into private practice in Brazil, from the perspective of third party payers., Methods: We conducted a web-based survey with 30 (of a total of approximately 700) Brazilian medical oncologists, who were stratified by State according to the proportion of patients with breast cancer and private health insurance. We evaluated the possible treatment of first choice for patients with lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, regardless of menopausal status. Interviewees were not aware of the objective of the study. Responses permitted a quantitative assessment of the care patterns regarding use of different chemotherapy regimens, type of premedication, use of growth factors, and use of intravenous antibiotics for febrile neutropenia. We calculated medication costs using the manufacturer's recommended prices. Other direct medical expenses, indirect medical costs, and non-medical costs were not included., Results: Considering a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients without access to the 21-gene expression assay, the survey showed that 84 patients would receive chemotherapy. Reclassifying patient eligibility for chemotherapy according to the 21-gene expression assay would lower this number to 49. For a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients with access to the test, US$ 79,361.43 would be saved in main direct medical costs. Such results, however, would greatly vary according to tumor size: the 21-gene expression assay could increase direct medical costs in T1 tumors, and decrease costs in cases with T >2 cm., Conclusion: Considering the current price for the 21-gene expression assay in Brazil, our economic analysis suggests that such testing is an overall cost-saving, from the perspective of third party payers. Further, optimal use of resources would entail targeted use of the 21-gene expression assay.