Search

Background: The extent to which a genomic test will be used in practice is affected by factors such as ability of the test to correctly predict response to treatment (i.e. sensitivity and specificity of the test), invasiveness of the testing procedure, test cost, and the probability and severity of side effects associated with treatment., Methods: Using discrete choice experimentation (DCE), we elicited preferences of the public (Sample 1, N = 533 and Sample 2, N = 525) and cancer patients (Sample 3, N = 38) for different attributes of a hypothetical genomic test for guiding cancer treatment. Samples 1 and 3 considered the test/treatment in the context of an aggressive curable cancer (scenario A) while the scenario for sample 2 was based on a non-aggressive incurable cancer (scenario B)., Results: In aggressive curable cancer (scenario A), everything else being equal, the odds ratio (OR) of choosing a test with 95% sensitivity was 1.41 (versus a test with 50% sensitivity) and willingness to pay (WTP) was $1331, on average, for this amount of improvement in test sensitivity. In this scenario, the OR of choosing a test with 95% specificity was 1.24 times that of a test with 50% specificity (WTP = $827). In non-aggressive incurable cancer (scenario B), the OR of choosing a test with 95% sensitivity was 1.65 (WTP = $1344), and the OR of choosing a test with 95% specificity was 1.50 (WTP = $1080). Reducing severity of treatment side effects from severe to mild was associated with large ORs in both scenarios (OR = 2.10 and 2.24 in scenario A and B, respectively). In contrast, patients had a very large preference for 95% sensitivity of the test (OR = 5.23)., Conclusion: The type and prognosis of cancer affected preferences for genomically-guided treatment. In aggressive curable cancer, individuals emphasized more on the sensitivity rather than the specificity of the test. In contrast, for a non-aggressive incurable cancer, individuals put similar emphasis on sensitivity and specificity of the test. While the public expressed strong preference toward lowering severity of side effects, improving sensitivity of the test had by far the largest influence on patients' decision to use genomic testing.

BackgroundAn important challenge with the application of next-generation sequencing technology is the possibility of uncovering incidental genomic findings. A paucity of evidence on personal utility for incidental findings has hindered clinical guidelines. Our objective was to estimate personal utility for complex information derived from incidental genomic findings.MethodsWe used a discrete-choice experiment to evaluate participants' personal utility for the following attributes: disease penetrance, disease treatability, disease severity, carrier status and cost. Study participants were drawn from the Canadian public. We analyzed the data with a mixed logit model.ResultsIn total, 1200 participants completed our questionnaire (available in English and French). Participants valued receiving information about high-penetrance disorders but expressed disutility for receiving information on low-penetrance disorders. The average willingness to pay was $445 (95% confidence interval [CI] $322-$567) to receive incidental findings in a scenario where clinicians returned information about high-penetrance, medically treatable disorders, but only 66% of participants (95% CI 63%-71%) indicated that they would choose to receive information in that scenario. On average, participants placed an important value ($725, 95% CI $600-$850) on having a choice about what type of findings they would receive, including receipt of information about high-penetrance, treatable disorders or receipt of information about high-penetrance disorders with or without available treatment. The predicted uptake of that scenario was 76% (95% CI 72%-79%).InterpretationMost participants valued receiving incidental findings, but personal utility depended on the type of finding, and not all participants wanted to receive incidental results, regardless of the potential health implications. These results indicate that to maximize benefit, participant-level preferences should inform the decision about whether to return incidental findings.

Background. Management of low-grade oral dysplasias (LGDs) is complicated, as only a small percentage of lesions will progress to invasive disease. The current standard of care requires patients to undergo regular monitoring of their lesions, with intervention occurring as a response to meaningful clinical changes. Recent improvements in molecular technologies and understanding of the biology of LGDs may allow clinicians to manage lesions based on their genome-guided risk. Methods. We used a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified care using a genomic assay. In the experimental arm, patients with LGDs were managed according to their risk profile using the assay, with low- and intermediate-risk patients given longer screening intervals and high-risk patients immediately treated with surgery. Patients in the comparator arm had standard care (biannual follow-up appointments at an oral cancer clinic). Incremental costs and outcomes in life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated based on the results in each arm. Results. The mean cost of assay-guided management was $8,123 (95% confidence interval [CI] $2,973 to $23,062 in 2013 Canadian dollars) less than the cost of standard care. This difference was driven largely by reductions in resource use among people who did not develop cancer. Mean incremental effectiveness was 0.18 LYG (95% CI 0.08 to 0.39) or 0.64 QALY (95% CI 0.46 to 0.89). Sensitivity analysis suggests that these findings are robust to both expected and extreme variation in all parameter values. Conclusion. Use of the assay-guided management strategy costs less and is more effective than standard management of LGDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute Myeloid Leukaemia ( AML) is a rare but serious group of diseases that require critical decision-making for curative treatment. Over the past decade, scientific discovery has revealed dozens of prognostic gene mutations for AML while sequencing costs have plummeted. In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of multigene integrative analysis (genomic analysis) with the standard molecular testing currently used for diagnosis of intermediate-risk AML. We used a decision analytic model with data for costs and outcomes from British Columbia, Canada, to assess the long-term (10-year) economic impacts. Our results suggest that genomic analysis would result in a 26% increase in the use of first-remission allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The resulting treatment decisions and downstream effects would come at an additional cost of $12 556 [2013 Canadian dollars ( CAD)] per person and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be $49 493 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on quality of life during the long-term (5-10) years of survival, relapse rates following first-remission chemotherapy and the upfront cost of transplantation. Non-relapse mortality rates, short-term quality of life and the cost of genomic sequencing had only minor impacts. Further research on post-remission outcomes can lead to improvements in the cost-effectiveness of curative treatments for AML. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]