Sarah E Taylor, Phuong L Mai, Heidi Donovan, Sarah G Bell, Shannon K Rush, Robert P Edwards, Ronald J Buckanovich, Kenneth J Smith
{"title":"上皮性卵巢癌BRCA致病变异肿瘤检测的成本-效果分析。","authors":"Sarah E Taylor, Phuong L Mai, Heidi Donovan, Sarah G Bell, Shannon K Rush, Robert P Edwards, Ronald J Buckanovich, Kenneth J Smith","doi":"10.1097/COC.0000000000001187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Approximately 15% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. Genetic testing for BRCA is recommended for all EOC patients, but not routinely performed. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of BRCA screening with primary tumor testing versus routine germline testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The model used literature-based probability estimates and published cost data. Effectiveness was the probability of testing completion for each strategy, providing cost per additional woman tested. A strategy was favored if it cost ≤$5000 per additional woman tested, reflecting costs of 100% receiving germline testing and 85% subsequently receiving tumor testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case, primary tumor testing costs $3057 per additional woman tested. While more costly, primary tumor testing increased efficacy 2.67-fold with an incremental cost of $1500. In sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to varying testing costs. Tumor testing costs ≤$5000 per additional woman tested when individually varying all parameters through clinically plausible ranges. Primary germline testing was favored in >60% of cases (base case 30%) when it occurred. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over plausible ranges 5000 times, tumor testing cost ≤$5000 per additional woman tested in 100% of model iterations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cost effectiveness data already support BRCA1/2 screening for EOC with clear implications for cancer prevention. On the basis of this model, primary tumor testing leads to a 2.67-fold increase in testing with an incremental cost of $1500, supporting this strategy as a cost-effective way to improve BRCA testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":50812,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"365-371"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tumor Testing for BRCA Pathogenic Variants in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah E Taylor, Phuong L Mai, Heidi Donovan, Sarah G Bell, Shannon K Rush, Robert P Edwards, Ronald J Buckanovich, Kenneth J Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/COC.0000000000001187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Approximately 15% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. Genetic testing for BRCA is recommended for all EOC patients, but not routinely performed. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of BRCA screening with primary tumor testing versus routine germline testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The model used literature-based probability estimates and published cost data. Effectiveness was the probability of testing completion for each strategy, providing cost per additional woman tested. A strategy was favored if it cost ≤$5000 per additional woman tested, reflecting costs of 100% receiving germline testing and 85% subsequently receiving tumor testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case, primary tumor testing costs $3057 per additional woman tested. While more costly, primary tumor testing increased efficacy 2.67-fold with an incremental cost of $1500. In sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to varying testing costs. Tumor testing costs ≤$5000 per additional woman tested when individually varying all parameters through clinically plausible ranges. Primary germline testing was favored in >60% of cases (base case 30%) when it occurred. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over plausible ranges 5000 times, tumor testing cost ≤$5000 per additional woman tested in 100% of model iterations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cost effectiveness data already support BRCA1/2 screening for EOC with clear implications for cancer prevention. On the basis of this model, primary tumor testing leads to a 2.67-fold increase in testing with an incremental cost of $1500, supporting this strategy as a cost-effective way to improve BRCA testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"365-371\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000001187\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000001187","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tumor Testing for BRCA Pathogenic Variants in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.
Objectives: Approximately 15% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. Genetic testing for BRCA is recommended for all EOC patients, but not routinely performed. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of BRCA screening with primary tumor testing versus routine germline testing.
Methods: The model used literature-based probability estimates and published cost data. Effectiveness was the probability of testing completion for each strategy, providing cost per additional woman tested. A strategy was favored if it cost ≤$5000 per additional woman tested, reflecting costs of 100% receiving germline testing and 85% subsequently receiving tumor testing.
Results: In the base case, primary tumor testing costs $3057 per additional woman tested. While more costly, primary tumor testing increased efficacy 2.67-fold with an incremental cost of $1500. In sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to varying testing costs. Tumor testing costs ≤$5000 per additional woman tested when individually varying all parameters through clinically plausible ranges. Primary germline testing was favored in >60% of cases (base case 30%) when it occurred. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over plausible ranges 5000 times, tumor testing cost ≤$5000 per additional woman tested in 100% of model iterations.
Conclusion: Cost effectiveness data already support BRCA1/2 screening for EOC with clear implications for cancer prevention. On the basis of this model, primary tumor testing leads to a 2.67-fold increase in testing with an incremental cost of $1500, supporting this strategy as a cost-effective way to improve BRCA testing.
期刊介绍:
American Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal for cancer surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, GYN oncologists, and pediatric oncologists.
The emphasis of AJCO is on combined modality multidisciplinary loco-regional management of cancer. The journal also gives emphasis to translational research, outcome studies, and cost utility analyses, and includes opinion pieces and review articles.
The editorial board includes a large number of distinguished surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, GYN oncologists, pediatric oncologists, and others who are internationally recognized for expertise in their fields.