基于人群或家族史的乳腺癌BRCA基因检测?对经济评估的系统回顾。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Zahra Meshkani, Ali Aboutorabi, Najmeh Moradi, Mostafa Langarizadeh, Ali Ghanbari Motlagh
{"title":"基于人群或家族史的乳腺癌BRCA基因检测?对经济评估的系统回顾。","authors":"Zahra Meshkani,&nbsp;Ali Aboutorabi,&nbsp;Najmeh Moradi,&nbsp;Mostafa Langarizadeh,&nbsp;Ali Ghanbari Motlagh","doi":"10.1186/s13053-021-00191-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nearly 56% of at-risk carriers are not identified and missed as a result of the current family-history (FH) screening for genetic testing. The present study aims to review the economic evaluation studies on BRCA genetic testing strategies for screening and early detection of breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic literature review is conducted within the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and EMBASE databases. In this paper, the relevant published economic evaluation studies are identified by following the standard Cochrane Collaboration methods and adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement reporting some recommendations for articles up to March 2020. Thereafter, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied to screen the articles. Disagreements are resolved through a consensus meeting. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist is used in the evaluation of quality. Finally, a narrative synthesis is performed. To compare the different levels of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the net present value is calculated based on a discount rate of 3% in 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 788 initially retrieved citations, 12 studies were included. More than 60% of the studies were originated from high-income countries and were published after 2016. It is noteworthy that most of the studies evaluated the payer perspective. Moreover, the robustness of the results were analyzed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses in nearly 66% of these studies. Nearly, 25% of the studies are focused and defined population-based and family history BRCA tests as comparators; afterwards, the cost-effectiveness of the former was confirmed. The highest and lowest absolute values for the ICERs were $65,661 and $9 per quality adjusted life years, respectively. All studies met over 70% of the CHEERs criteria checklist, which was considered as 93% of high quality on average as well.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The genetic BRCA tests for the general population as well as unselected breast cancer patients were cost-effective in high and upper-middle income countries and those with prevalence of gene mutation while population-based genetic tests for low-middle income countries are depended on the price of the tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":55058,"journal":{"name":"Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice","volume":"19 1","pages":"35"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8399845/pdf/","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Population or family history based BRCA gene tests of breast cancer? A systematic review of economic evaluations.\",\"authors\":\"Zahra Meshkani,&nbsp;Ali Aboutorabi,&nbsp;Najmeh Moradi,&nbsp;Mostafa Langarizadeh,&nbsp;Ali Ghanbari Motlagh\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13053-021-00191-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nearly 56% of at-risk carriers are not identified and missed as a result of the current family-history (FH) screening for genetic testing. The present study aims to review the economic evaluation studies on BRCA genetic testing strategies for screening and early detection of breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic literature review is conducted within the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and EMBASE databases. In this paper, the relevant published economic evaluation studies are identified by following the standard Cochrane Collaboration methods and adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement reporting some recommendations for articles up to March 2020. Thereafter, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied to screen the articles. Disagreements are resolved through a consensus meeting. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist is used in the evaluation of quality. Finally, a narrative synthesis is performed. To compare the different levels of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the net present value is calculated based on a discount rate of 3% in 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 788 initially retrieved citations, 12 studies were included. More than 60% of the studies were originated from high-income countries and were published after 2016. It is noteworthy that most of the studies evaluated the payer perspective. Moreover, the robustness of the results were analyzed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses in nearly 66% of these studies. Nearly, 25% of the studies are focused and defined population-based and family history BRCA tests as comparators; afterwards, the cost-effectiveness of the former was confirmed. The highest and lowest absolute values for the ICERs were $65,661 and $9 per quality adjusted life years, respectively. All studies met over 70% of the CHEERs criteria checklist, which was considered as 93% of high quality on average as well.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The genetic BRCA tests for the general population as well as unselected breast cancer patients were cost-effective in high and upper-middle income countries and those with prevalence of gene mutation while population-based genetic tests for low-middle income countries are depended on the price of the tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8399845/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-021-00191-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-021-00191-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

背景:由于目前的家族史(FH)基因检测筛查,近56%的高危携带者没有被识别和遗漏。本研究旨在回顾BRCA基因检测策略在癌症筛查和早期检测中的经济评价研究。方法:本系统文献综述在Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、ProQuest和EMBASE数据库中进行。在本文中,相关已发表的经济评估研究是通过遵循标准的Cochrane协作方法和遵守系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)声明来确定的,该声明报告了截至2020年3月的一些文章建议。此后,应用纳入和排除标准来筛选文章。分歧通过协商一致会议解决。综合健康经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)检查表用于质量评估。最后,进行叙事合成。为了比较不同水平的增量成本效益比(ICER),净现值是根据2019年3%的贴现率计算的。结果:在788篇最初检索到的引文中,包括12项研究。超过60%的研究来自高收入国家,发表于2016年之后。值得注意的是,大多数研究都评估了付款人的观点。此外,在近66%的研究中,通过单向和概率敏感性分析对结果的稳健性进行了分析。近25%的研究集中并定义了基于人群和家族史的BRCA检测作为对照;之后,证实了前者的成本效益。ICER的最高和最低绝对值分别为每质量调整寿命年65661美元和9美元。所有研究都符合CHEER标准检查表的70%以上,平均而言,这也被认为是93%的高质量研究。结论:在高收入和高收入国家以及基因突变流行的国家,对普通人群和未经选择的癌症患者进行BRCA基因检测具有成本效益,而中低收入国家基于人群的基因检测取决于检测价格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Population or family history based BRCA gene tests of breast cancer? A systematic review of economic evaluations.

Population or family history based BRCA gene tests of breast cancer? A systematic review of economic evaluations.

Population or family history based BRCA gene tests of breast cancer? A systematic review of economic evaluations.

Background: Nearly 56% of at-risk carriers are not identified and missed as a result of the current family-history (FH) screening for genetic testing. The present study aims to review the economic evaluation studies on BRCA genetic testing strategies for screening and early detection of breast cancer.

Methods: This systematic literature review is conducted within the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and EMBASE databases. In this paper, the relevant published economic evaluation studies are identified by following the standard Cochrane Collaboration methods and adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement reporting some recommendations for articles up to March 2020. Thereafter, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied to screen the articles. Disagreements are resolved through a consensus meeting. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist is used in the evaluation of quality. Finally, a narrative synthesis is performed. To compare the different levels of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the net present value is calculated based on a discount rate of 3% in 2019.

Results: Among 788 initially retrieved citations, 12 studies were included. More than 60% of the studies were originated from high-income countries and were published after 2016. It is noteworthy that most of the studies evaluated the payer perspective. Moreover, the robustness of the results were analyzed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses in nearly 66% of these studies. Nearly, 25% of the studies are focused and defined population-based and family history BRCA tests as comparators; afterwards, the cost-effectiveness of the former was confirmed. The highest and lowest absolute values for the ICERs were $65,661 and $9 per quality adjusted life years, respectively. All studies met over 70% of the CHEERs criteria checklist, which was considered as 93% of high quality on average as well.

Conclusions: The genetic BRCA tests for the general population as well as unselected breast cancer patients were cost-effective in high and upper-middle income countries and those with prevalence of gene mutation while population-based genetic tests for low-middle income countries are depended on the price of the tests.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
38
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice is an open access journal that publishes articles of interest for the cancer genetics community and serves as a discussion forum for the development appropriate healthcare strategies. Cancer genetics encompasses a wide variety of disciplines and knowledge in the field is rapidly growing, especially as the amount of information linking genetic differences to inherited cancer predispositions continues expanding. With the increased knowledge of genetic variability and how this relates to cancer risk there is a growing demand not only to disseminate this information into clinical practice but also to enable competent debate concerning how such information is managed and what it implies for patient care. Topics covered by the journal include but are not limited to: Original research articles on any aspect of inherited predispositions to cancer. Reviews of inherited cancer predispositions. Application of molecular and cytogenetic analysis to clinical decision making. Clinical aspects of the management of hereditary cancers. Genetic counselling issues associated with cancer genetics. The role of registries in improving health care of patients with an inherited predisposition to cancer.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信