Molecular Testing in Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
JCO precision oncology Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-06 DOI:10.1200/PO-25-01110
Yilin Chen, Solomon J Lubinga, Scott Ramsey, Jean Hurteau, Jade Reynolds, Josh J Carlson
{"title":"Molecular Testing in Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.","authors":"Yilin Chen, Solomon J Lubinga, Scott Ramsey, Jean Hurteau, Jade Reynolds, Josh J Carlson","doi":"10.1200/PO-25-01110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We assessed the cost-effectiveness of Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) testing versus no molecular testing to guide initial treatment in stage III/IV primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (pA/rEC) from payer and societal perspectives.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A decision tree for molecular classification followed by a partitioned survival model estimated lifetime costs and outcomes for ProMisE versus no testing. Patients in the no testing arm received carboplatin + paclitaxel (CP), dostarlimab + CP, pembrolizumab + CP, or hormonal therapy (everolimus + letrozole). Patients in the ProMisE arm received the same treatments or bevacizumab + CP. Survival functions were derived from trial results. EQ-5D-5L utility values were from the RUBY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03981796). Costs were sourced from US databases and literature. The base case presented a US third-party payer perspective. A scenario analysis presented a modified societal perspective. Outcomes were total life-years (LYs), total quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ProMisE versus no testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a payer perspective, total LYs and total QALYs were 5.36 and 4.08 with ProMisE versus 3.83 and 2.89 with no testing, respectively. Total costs were $233,989 US dollars (USD) with ProMisE versus $155,305 USD with no testing. Incremental LYs and QALYs were 1.53 and 1.19 greater with ProMisE; incremental costs over a lifetime were $78,684 USD greater with ProMisE. Assuming a threshold of $150,000 USD per QALY gained, ProMisE was cost effective with an ICER of $66,321 USD per QALY gained. From a societal perspective, lifetime costs were lower (-$22,973 USD) and QALYs greater with ProMisE versus no testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ProMisE testing is cost effective compared with no testing. Given the heterogeneity of molecular subtypes in stage III/IV pA/rEC, molecular testing enables personalized treatment that is both clinically meaningful and of high value from payer and societal perspectives.</p>","PeriodicalId":14797,"journal":{"name":"JCO precision oncology","volume":"10 7","pages":"e2501110"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13361956/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO precision oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO-25-01110","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) testing versus no molecular testing to guide initial treatment in stage III/IV primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (pA/rEC) from payer and societal perspectives.

Methods: A decision tree for molecular classification followed by a partitioned survival model estimated lifetime costs and outcomes for ProMisE versus no testing. Patients in the no testing arm received carboplatin + paclitaxel (CP), dostarlimab + CP, pembrolizumab + CP, or hormonal therapy (everolimus + letrozole). Patients in the ProMisE arm received the same treatments or bevacizumab + CP. Survival functions were derived from trial results. EQ-5D-5L utility values were from the RUBY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03981796). Costs were sourced from US databases and literature. The base case presented a US third-party payer perspective. A scenario analysis presented a modified societal perspective. Outcomes were total life-years (LYs), total quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ProMisE versus no testing.

Results: From a payer perspective, total LYs and total QALYs were 5.36 and 4.08 with ProMisE versus 3.83 and 2.89 with no testing, respectively. Total costs were $233,989 US dollars (USD) with ProMisE versus $155,305 USD with no testing. Incremental LYs and QALYs were 1.53 and 1.19 greater with ProMisE; incremental costs over a lifetime were $78,684 USD greater with ProMisE. Assuming a threshold of $150,000 USD per QALY gained, ProMisE was cost effective with an ICER of $66,321 USD per QALY gained. From a societal perspective, lifetime costs were lower (-$22,973 USD) and QALYs greater with ProMisE versus no testing.

Conclusion: ProMisE testing is cost effective compared with no testing. Given the heterogeneity of molecular subtypes in stage III/IV pA/rEC, molecular testing enables personalized treatment that is both clinically meaningful and of high value from payer and societal perspectives.

原发性晚期或复发子宫内膜癌的分子检测:成本-效果分析。
目的:我们从患者和社会的角度评估子宫内膜癌主动分子风险分类(ProMisE)检测与无分子检测的成本-效果,以指导III/IV期原发性晚期或复发子宫内膜癌(pA/rEC)的初始治疗。方法:一个分子分类的决策树,然后是一个分割的生存模型,估计了承诺与不测试的生命周期成本和结果。无试验组患者接受卡铂+紫杉醇(CP)、多司单抗+ CP、派姆单抗+ CP或激素治疗(依维莫司+来曲唑)。ProMisE组的患者接受了相同的治疗或贝伐单抗+ CP。生存功能来源于试验结果。EQ-5D-5L效用值来自RUBY试验(ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03981796)。费用来源于美国数据库和文献。基本案例展示了美国第三方付款人的视角。情景分析提出了一种改良的社会视角。结果包括承诺组与未检测组的总生命年(LYs)、总质量调整生命年(QALYs)、总成本和增量成本-效果比(ICER)。结果:从支付方角度看,有承诺的总lyys和总QALYs分别为5.36和4.08,无检测的分别为3.83和2.89。使用ProMisE的总成本为233,989美元,而不进行测试的总成本为155,305美元。与ProMisE相比,增量赖氨酸和质量赖氨酸分别增加1.53和1.19;使用ProMisE的终生增量成本增加了78,684美元。假设每个QALY获得150,000美元的门槛,那么ProMisE的成本效益为每个QALY获得66321美元。从社会的角度来看,与不进行检测相比,ProMisE的终身成本更低(- 22,973美元),QALYs更高。结论:承诺检测与不检测相比具有成本效益。鉴于III/IV期pA/rEC分子亚型的异质性,分子检测可以实现个性化治疗,既具有临床意义,又具有从付款人和社会角度看的高价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
363
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书