INTERCOSTAL MUSCLE SPINDLE ACTIVITY AND ITS GAMMA MOTOR CONTROL.

V. Critchlow,von EULER

Journal of Physiology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Fangjian Guo,Victor Adekanmbi,Christine D. Hsu,Abbey B. Berenson,Yong-Fang Kuo,Ya-Chen Tina Shih

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.56078

2024-02-15

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance The current method of BRCA testing for breast and ovarian cancer prevention, which is based on family history, often fails to identify many carriers of pathogenic variants. Population-based genetic testing offers a transformative approach in cancer prevention by allowing for proactive identification of any high-risk individuals and enabling early interventions. Objective To assess the lifetime incremental effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of population-based multigene testing vs family history–based testing. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of multigene testing ( BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 ) for all women aged 30 to 35 years compared with the current standard of care that is family history based. Carriers of pathogenic variants were offered interventions, such as magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography, chemoprevention, or risk-reducing mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy, to reduce cancer risk. A total of 2000 simulations were run on 1 000 000 women, using a lifetime time horizon and payer perspective, and costs were adjusted to 2022 US dollars. This study was conducted from September 1, 2020, to December 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantified as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcomes included incremental cost, additional breast and ovarian cancer cases prevented, and excess deaths due to coronary heart disease (CHD). Results The study assessed 1 000 000 simulated women aged 30 to 35 years in the US. In the base case, population-based multigene testing was more cost-effective compared with family history–based testing, with an ICER of 47 288- 825, population-based testing was no longer cost-effective (ICER, 87 601-$11 6323). Conclusions and Relevance In this economic analysis of population-based multigene testing, population-based testing was a more cost-effective strategy for the prevention of breast cancer and ovarian cancer when compared with the current family history–based testing strategy at the $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. These findings support the need for more comprehensive genetic testing strategies to identify pathogenic variant carriers and enable informed decision-making for personalized risk management.

medicine, general & internal
The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

Srinivas Teppala,Paul A. Scuffham,Haitham Tuffaha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462324000011

2024-03-07

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract:Background Olaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of BRCA germline testing to inform olaparib treatment in mCRPC. Methods We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment compared to standard care without testing from an Australian health payer perspective. The analysis applied a decision tree to indicate the germline testing or no testing strategy. A Markov multi-state transition approach was used for patients within each strategy. The model had a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5 percent. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic and scenario analyses. Results Compared to standard care, BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU 143,613 per QALY. The probability of BRCA testing-guided treatment being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$100,000 per QALY was around 2 percent; however, the likelihood for cost-effectiveness increased to 66 percent if the price of olaparib was reduced by 30 percent. Conclusion This is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Economic evaluation of extended panel analysis in cancer patients with historical NHS diagnostic germline genetic testing - A modeling study based on real-world data

Qin Xi,Rahul Patel,Thomas Linton-Willoughby,John Short,Marc Tischkowitz,Katie Snape,Stephen Morris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2024.104969

2024-09-12

Abstract:Background: The South West Thames Centre for Genomics implemented a wider diagnostic Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) gene panel for eligible cancer patients undergoing diagnostic testing whilst restricting data analysis and reporting for BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2/CHEK2 1100delC only as per contemporaneous guidelines. This study investigated the cost-utility of reanalyzing existing diagnostic grade extended panel data for truncating germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in known moderate risk cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) and performing follow-up genetic testing for first-degree relatives if patients have an identified CSG allele. Methods: Reanalysis of existing NGS data was undertaken in 889 samples from cancer patients contemporaneously eligible through the NHS England National Genomic Test Directory (NGTD) codes R207 (ovarian) or R208 (breast) who had tested negative for BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 and CHEK2 1100delC founder variant. We modeled the cost and health outcomes for comparisons between: 1. Extending reanalysis to ATM truncating GPVs (partial extended testing) versus historical genetic testing, and 2. Extending analysis to ATM truncating GPV/BRIP1 truncating GPV/CHEK2 truncating GPV excluding CHEK2 1100delC/RAD51C truncating GPV/RAD51D truncating GPV (full extended testing) versus historical genetic testing. Results: For partial extended testing, the ICER compared with historical genetic testing was UK£49,671/QALY. For full extended testing, the ICER compared with historical genetic testing of historical genetic testing was UK£5716/QALY. The full extended testing remained cost-effective with a 30% increase in genetic testing cost. Conclusion: Where existing NGS data for cancer susceptibility genes is stored to diagnostic standard in UK laboratories, this study suggests it is cost-effective to analyze, report and clinically manage patients and relatives by extended analysis to an 8-gene panel compared to the historical genetic testing.
Cost-Effectiveness of Gene-Specific Prevention for Ovarian and Breast Cancer

Xia Wei,Li Sun,Eric Slade,Caitlin T. Fierheller,Samuel Oxley,Ashwin Kalra,Jacqueline Sia,Michail Sideris,W. Glenn McCluggage,Nathan Bromham,Katharina Dworzynski,Adam N. Rosenthal,Adam Brentnall,Stephen Duffy,D. Gareth Evans,Li Yang,Rosa Legood,Ranjit Manchanda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55324

2024-02-10

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This economic evaluation estimates the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for ovarian and breast cancer among individuals with pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1.

medicine, general & internal
Effect of ranolazine on left ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with coronary artery disease.

R. Venkataraman,Ji Chen,Ernest V. Garcia,L. Belardinelli,F. Hage,J. Heo,A. Iskandrian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.06.055

2012-11-15

Abstract:
A New Paradigm Of Genetic Testing For Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancers

Ava Kwong,Jin-Fei Chen,Vivian Y. Shin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12809/hkmj154634

2016-01-01

Hong Kong Medical Journal

Abstract:Introduction: Genetic risk factors and family history play an important role in breast cancer development. This review aimed to summarise the current genetic testing approach to hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.Methods: A systematic literature review was performed by searching the PubMed database. Publications available online until January 2015 that addressed issues related to hereditary breast/ovarian cancer genetic counselling/testing were selected. The search terms used were "familial breast/ovarian cancer", "susceptibility genes", "genetic counselling", and "genetic testing': The data extracted for this review were analysed by the authors, with a focus on genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.Results: Although a greater proportion of inherited breast/ovarian cancers are due to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, a number of new genes have emerged as susceptibility candidates, including rare germline mutations in high penetrance genes, such as TP53 and PTEN, and more frequent mutations in moderate/low penetrance genes, such as PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM. Multi-gene testing, if used appropriately, is generally a more cost- and time-effective method than single-gene testing, and may increase the number of patients who can be offered personal surveillance, risk-reduction options, and testing of high-risk family members.Conclusions: Recent advances in molecular genetics testing have identified a number of susceptibility genes related to hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers other than BRCA1 and BRCA2. The introduction of multi-gene testing for hereditary cancer has revolutionised the clinical management of high-risk patients and their families. Individuals with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer will benefit from genetic counselling/testing.
Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Testing Across Multiple Countries and Health Systems

Ranjit Manchanda,Li Sun,Shreeya Patel,Olivia Evans,Janneke Wilschut,Ana Carolina De Freitas Lopes,Faiza Gaba,Adam Brentnall,Stephen Duffy,Bin Cui,Patricia Coelho De Soarez,Zakir Husain,John Hopper,Zia Sadique,Asima Mukhopadhyay,Li Yang,Johannes Berkhof,Rosa Legood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12071929

2020-01-01

Cancers

Abstract:Clinical criteria/Family history-based BRCA testing misses a large proportion of BRCA carriers who can benefit from screening/prevention. We estimate the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing in general population women across different countries/health systems. A Markov model comparing the lifetime costs and effects of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing all general population women ≥30 years compared with clinical criteria/FH-based testing. Separate analyses are undertaken for the UK/USA/Netherlands (high-income countries/HIC), China/Brazil (upper–middle income countries/UMIC) and India (low–middle income countries/LMIC) using both health system/payer and societal perspectives. BRCA carriers undergo appropriate screening/prevention interventions to reduce breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Outcomes include OC, BC, and additional heart disease deaths and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses evaluate model uncertainty. For the base case, from a societal perspective, we found that population-based BRCA testing is cost-saving in HIC (UK-ICER = $−5639/QALY; USA-ICER = $−4018/QALY; Netherlands-ICER = $−11,433/QALY), and it appears cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $18,066/QALY; Brazil-ICER = $13,579/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $23,031/QALY). From a payer perspective, population-based BRCA testing is highly cost-effective in HIC (UK-ICER = $21,191/QALY, USA-ICER = $16,552/QALY, Netherlands-ICER = $25,215/QALY), and it is cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $23,485/QALY, Brazil−ICER = $20,995/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $32,217/QALY). BRCA testing costs below $172/test (ICER = $19,685/QALY), which makes it cost-effective (from a societal perspective) for LMIC/India. Population-based BRCA testing can prevent an additional 2319 to 2666 BC and 327 to 449 OC cases per million women than the current clinical strategy. Findings suggest that population-based BRCA testing for countries evaluated is extremely cost-effective across HIC/UMIC health systems, is cost-saving for HIC health systems from a societal perspective, and can prevent tens of thousands more BC/OC cases.
Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing in Canada

Li Sun,Xia Wei,Caitlin T Fierheller,Lesa Dawson,Samuel Oxley,Ashwin Kalra,Jacqueline Sia,Fabio Feldman,Stuart Peacock,Kasmintan A Schrader,Rosa Legood,Janice S Kwon,Ranjit Manchanda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.32725

2024-09-03

Abstract:Importance: Population-based BRCA testing can identify many more BRCA carriers who will be missed by the current practice of BRCA testing based on family history (FH) and clinical criteria. These carriers can benefit from screening and prevention, potentially preventing many more breast and ovarian cancers and deaths than the current practice. Objective: To estimate the incremental lifetime health outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with population-based BRCA testing compared with FH-based testing in Canada. Design, setting, and participants: For this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing for all general population women aged 30 years compared with FH-based testing. BRCA carriers are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce their ovarian cancer risk and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography screening, medical prevention, and risk-reducing mastectomy to reduce their breast cancer risk. The analyses were conducted from both payer and societal perspectives. This study was conducted from October 1, 2022, to February 20, 2024. Main outcomes and measures: Outcomes of interest were ovarian cancer, breast cancer, additional heart disease deaths, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic-sensitivity-analyses (PSA) were undertaken to explore the uncertainty. Results: In the simulated cohort of 1 000 000 women aged 30 years in Canada, the base case ICERs of population-based BRCA testing were CAD $32 276 (US $23 402.84) per QALY from the payer perspective or CAD $16 416 (US $11 903.00) per QALY from the societal perspective compared with FH-based testing, well below the established Canadian cost-effectiveness thresholds. Population testing remained cost-effective for ages 40 to 60 years but not at age 70 years. The results were robust for multiple scenarios, 1-way sensitivity, and PSA. More than 99% of simulations from payer and societal perspectives were cost-effective on PSA (5000 simulations) at the CAD $50 000 (US $36 254.25) per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Population-based BRCA testing could potentially prevent an additional 2555 breast cancers and 485 ovarian cancers in the Canadian population, corresponding to averting 196 breast cancer deaths and 163 ovarian cancer deaths per 1 000 000 population. Conclusions and relevance: In this economic evaluation, population-based BRCA testing was cost-effective compared with FH-based testing in Canada from payer and societal perspectives. These findings suggest that changing the genetic testing paradigm to population-based testing could prevent thousands of breast and ovarian cancers.
A cost-utility analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk breast cancer patients and family members in Thailand: a cost-effective policy in resource-limited settings

Pongtawat Lertwilaiwittaya,Narisa Tantai,Satanun Maneeon,Sophittha Kongbunrak,Nongyao Nonpanya,Anna C E Hurst,Varalak Srinonprasert,Manop Pithukpakorn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1257668

2023-12-14

Abstract:Background: Screening for germline pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants (gBRCA) in high-risk breast cancer patients is known to be cost-effective in high-income countries. Nationwide adoption of genetics testing in high-risk breast cancer population remains poor. Our study aimed to assess gBRCA health economics data in the middle-income country setting of Thailand. Methods: Decision tree and Markov model were utilized to assess cost-utility between the testing vs. no-testing groups from a societal and lifetime perspective and lifetime. We interviewed 264 patients with breast/ovarian cancer and their family members to assess relevant costs and quality of life using EQ-5D-5L. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity (Monte Carlo simulation), and budget impact analyses were done to estimate the outcome under Thailand's Universal Health Coverage scheme. Results: The predicted lifetime cost and Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALY) for those with breast cancer were $13,788 and 10.22 in the testing group and $13,702 and 10.07 in the no-testing group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for gBRCA testing in high-risk breast cancer patients was $573/QALY. The lifetime cost for the family members of those with gBRCA was $14,035 (QALY 9.99), while the no-testing family members group was $14,077 (QALY 9.98). Performing gBRCA testing in family members was cost-saving. Conclusion: Cost-utility analysis demonstrated a cost-effective result of gBRCA testing in high-risk breast cancer patients and cost-saving in familial cascade testing. The result was endorsed in the national health benefits package in 2022. Other middle-income countries may observe the cost-effective/cost-saving aspects in common genetic diseases under their national health schemes.
Cost-Effectiveness of Genetic Testing for All Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in China

Li Sun,Bin Cui,Xia Wei,Zia Sadique,Li Yang,Ranjit Manchanda,Rosa Legood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071839

2022-04-06

Cancers

Abstract:Unselected multigene testing for all women with breast cancer (BC) identifies more cancer susceptibility gene (CSG) carriers who can benefit from precision prevention compared with family history (FH)/clinical-criteria-based guidelines. Very little CSG testing is undertaken in middle-income countries such as China, and its cost-effectiveness remains unaddressed. We aimed to estimate cost-effectiveness and population impact of multigene testing for all Chinese BC patients. Data from 8085 unselected BC patients recruited to a Peking University Cancer Hospital study were used for microsimulation modeling, comparing three strategies in the Chinese setting: all BC women undergo BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 genetic testing, only BC women fulfilling FH/clinical criteria undergo BRCA testing, and no genetic testing. Prophylactic mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy would be adopted where appropriate. Societal and payer perspectives with a lifetime horizon along with sensitivity analyses were presented. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained is compared to the USD 10,260/QALY (one-times GDP per capita) willingness-to-pay threshold. BC incidence, ovarian cancer (OC) incidence, and related deaths were also estimated. FH/clinical-criteria-based BRCA testing was ruled out on the principle of extensive dominance. Compared with no genetic testing, multigene testing for all BC patients had an ICER = USD 4506/QALY (societal perspective) and USD 7266/QALY (payer perspective), well below our threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed unselected multigene testing remained cost-effective for 94.2%/86.6% of simulations from the societal and payer perspectives. One year’s unselected multigene testing could prevent 7868 BC/OC cases and 5164 BC/OC deaths in China. Therefore, unselected multigene testing is extremely cost-effective and should be offered to all Chinese women with BC.

oncology
Cost-effectiveness of Genetic Testing of Endocrine Tumor Patients Using a Comprehensive Hereditary Cancer Gene Panel

Attila Patócs,Petra Nagy,János Papp,Anikó Bozsik,Bálint Antal,Vince Kornél Grolmusz,Tímea Pócza,Henriett Butz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgae300

2024-05-03

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract:Abstract Introduction Heterogenous clinical manifestations, overlapping phenotypes, and complex genetic backgrounds are common in patients with endocrine tumors. There are no comprehensive recommendations for genetic testing and counseling of these patients compared to other hereditary cancer syndromes. The application of multigene panel testing is common in clinical genetic laboratories, but their performance for patients with endocrine tumors has not been assessed. Methods As a national reference center, we prospectively tested the diagnostic utility and cost-efficiency of a multigene panel covering 113 genes representing genetic susceptibility for solid tumors; 1279 patients (including 96 cases with endocrine tumors) were evaluated between October 2021 and December 2022 who were suspected to have hereditary tumor syndromes. Results The analytical performance of the hereditary cancer panel was suitable for diagnostic testing. Clinical diagnosis was confirmed in 24% (23/96); incidental findings in genes not associated with the patient's phenotype were identified in 5% (5/96). A further 7% of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were detected in genes with potential genetic susceptibility roles but currently no clear clinical consequence. Cost-benefit analysis showed that the application of a more comprehensive gene panel in a diagnostic laboratory yielded a shorter turnaround time and provided additional genetic results with the same cost and workload. Discussion Using comprehensive multigene panel results in faster turnaround time and cost-efficiently identifies genetic alterations in hereditary endocrine tumor syndromes. Incidentally identified variants in patients with poor prognoses may serve as a potential therapeutic target in tumors where therapeutic possibilities are limited.

endocrinology & metabolism
Germline genetic testing in breast cancer: Rationale for the testing of all women diagnosed by the age of 60 years and for risk‐based testing of those older than 60 years

Neelam V. Desai,Siddhartha Yadav,Felipe Batalini,Fergus J. Couch,Nadine M. Tung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33305

IF: 6.9209

2020-11-04

Cancer

Abstract:Approximately 5% to 10% of women diagnosed with breast cancer will have a pathogenic variant (PV) in a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, and this has significant implications for the management of these patients and their relatives. Despite the benefits of genetic testing, many eligible patients with breast cancer never undergo testing because of various barriers, including complicated testing criteria such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). In 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) proposed germline genetic testing for all patients with breast cancer to increase the identification of PV carriers. In 2020, a Mayo Clinic study highlighted the limitations of these 2 genetic testing guidelines (NCCN and ASBrS) and proposed a hybrid approach of testing all women diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 65 years and using NCCN criteria for older patients. This commentary presents an updated analysis of the Mayo Clinic data and discusses the rationale for using the age of 60 years rather than 65 years as the cutoff for this hybrid approach. Using an age at diagnosis of ≤60 or ≤65 years for the universal testing of patients with breast cancer detected more PVs (11.9% [16 of 134] and 15.7% [21 of 134], respectively) in comparison with using the NCCN criteria. Lowering the age for universal testing from 65 to 60 years maintained the sensitivity of detecting a PV at >90% while sparing testing for an additional 10% of women. Compared with the testing of all patients, the hybrid approach would allow 31% of all women with breast cancer to forgo testing and result in fewer variants of uncertain significance identified and, therefore, would decrease the chance of harm from misinterpretation of these variants.

oncology
Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

N. Morrish,T. Snowsill,S. Dodman,A. Medina-Lara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x241227425

2024-02-09

Medical Decision Making

Abstract:Medical Decision Making, Ahead of Print. BackgroundUnderstanding service user preferences is key to effective health care decision making and efficient resource allocation. It is of particular importance in the management of high-risk patients in whom predictive genetic testing can alter health outcomes.PurposeThis review aims to identify the relative importance and willingness to pay for attributes of genetic testing in hereditary cancer syndromes.Data SourcesSearches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Web of Science, and EconLit using discrete choice experiment (DCE) terms combined with terms related to hereditary cancer syndromes, malignancy synonyms, and genetic testing.Study SelectionFollowing independent screening by 3 reviewers, 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, being a DCE investigating patient or public preferences related to predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Data ExtractionExtracted data included study and respondent characteristics, DCE attributes and levels, methods of data analysis and interpretation, and key study findings.Data SynthesisStudies covered colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer syndromes. Results were summarized in a narrative synthesis and the quality assessed using the Lancsar and Louviere framework.LimitationsThis review focuses only on DCE design and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes rather than other complex diseases. Challenges also arose from heterogeneity in attributes and levels.ConclusionsTest effectiveness and detection rates were consistently important to respondents and thus should be prioritized by policy makers. Accuracy, cost, and wait time, while also important, showed variation between studies, although overall reduction in cost may improve uptake. Patients and the public would be willing to pay for improved detection and clinician over insurance provider involvement. Future studies should seek to contextualize findings by considering the impact of sociodemographic characteristics, health system coverage, and insurance policies on preferences.HighlightsTest effectiveness and detection rates are consistently important to respondents in genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Reducing the cost of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes may improve uptake.Individuals are most willing to pay for a test that improves detection rates, identifies multiple cancers, and for which results are shared with a doctor rather than with an insurance provider.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,health policy & services
Point/Counterpoint: Is It Time for Universal Germline Genetic Testing for all GI Cancers?

Heather Hampel,Matthew B. Yurgelun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.02764

IF: 45.3

2022-06-03

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Use of germline genetic testing among patients with cancer is increasing because of (1) the availability of multigene panel tests that include multiple cancer susceptibility genes in a single test, (2) decreased costs of these tests and improvements in insurance coverage, and (3) US Food and Drug Administration–approval of genotype-directed therapies such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for individuals with certain cancers and pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (with possible benefits with other genes in the homologous repair deficiency pathway). In addition, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have already endorsed germline genetic testing for all patients with certain cancer types (epithelial ovarian cancer, exocrine pancreatic cancer, and high-grade/metastatic prostate cancer), regardless of age or personal/family history of cancer. Herein, we debate the pros and cons of offering germline multigene panel testing to all patients diagnosed with any GI cancer. The authors agree that it may just be a matter of time before germline multigene panel testing is offered to all patients with cancer; however, this article will highlight some of the benefits, risks, and limitations of this approach so that research can help fill some of the gaps to ensure that genetic medicine continues to be implemented in ways that improve real-world patient care and outcomes.

oncology
Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities

Sarah Briggs,Ingrid Slade

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40142-019-00162-x

Abstract:Purpose of review: As the costs of genomic testing have fallen, and our understanding of genetic susceptibility to cancers has grown, there has been increasing interest in incorporating testing for cancer susceptibility genes, and polygenic risk estimates, into population cancer screening. A growing body of evidence suggests that this would be both clinically and cost-effective. In this article, we aim to explore the frameworks used to evaluate screening programmes, evaluate whether population screening for cancer susceptibility can be assessed using these standards, and consider additional issues and outcomes of importance in this context. Recent findings: There are tensions between traditional approaches of genetic testing (utilising tests with high sensitivity and specificity) and the principles of population screening (in which the screening test typically has low specificity), as well as the frameworks used to evaluate the two. Despite the existence of many screening guidelines, including consensus papers, these often do not align fully with broader considerations of genetic test evaluation. Population screening for genetic risk in cancer shifts the focus from diagnostics to prognostication and has wider implications for personal and familial health than existing screening programmes. In addition, understanding of the prevalence and penetrance of cancer susceptibility genes, required by many screening guidelines, may only be obtainable through population-level testing; prospective multi-disciplinary research alongside implementation will be essential. Summary: Appropriate evaluation of genetic screening for cancer risk will require modification of existing screening frameworks to incorporate additional complexity of outcomes and population values. As evidence supporting population screening for cancer susceptibility mounts, development of an appropriate evaluative framework, and expansion of public dialogue will be key to informing policy.
Abstract P2-09-19: Inequitable access to genetic testing leads to missed screening and prevention opportunities for individuals at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Robert T Pilarski,Stephanie Noble,Lily Hoang,Randy Hew,Stephanie Gandomi,Holly LaDuca,Jill Dolinsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p2-09-19

IF: 11.2

2022-02-15

Cancer Research

Abstract:Abstract Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline on Genetic/Familial High Risk: Breast, Ovarian and Pancreatic Cancer (NCCN) recommends offering increased screening and risk-reduction options to women with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) in 8 clinically-actionable hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) genes: ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53. These options range from biannual clinical breast exams and annual breast MRI screening to risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Yet health insurance company policies addressing the medical necessity of genetic testing for these genes vary widely. While some payers have adopted the NCCN testing criteria verbatim, others have made specific changes or have developed their own criteria. We sought to quantify the potential impact of this variability on access to enhanced medical management for carriers of PV/LPV in these 8 HBOC genes in a large cohort of patients undergoing genetic testing at a single commercial laboratory. Methods: We reviewed clinical and family histories for patients undergoing multigene panel testing that included testing for the 8 genes of interest and identified 107,344 patients who met NCCN testing criteria (excluding prostate cancer criteria, which were not assessed in this study) for HBOC (v.2.2021). We then compared the histories of these patients to testing criteria for 3 different payer groups: Aetna, Blue Shield of California/Federal Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and eviCore (used by over 30 payers including AmeriHealth, Highmark and Horizon). These are the largest payer groups in our cohort and together represent 19% of patients tested. For each patient we determined whether they met testing criteria for the 3 payer groups. For individuals found to have a PV/LPV we determined the potential missed management opportunities for those who would not have been tested under each payer’s criteria. In addition, we sought to estimate the maximal impact of this missed management for patients with BRCA PV/LPV (not accounting for patient age or medical history). Results: Among patients meeting NCCN testing criteria for HBOC, 10,10,477 (9.8%) were found to have PVs/LPVs in one of the 8 genes. Under the three payer policies 2% to 10.3% of all patients, and up to 4.0% (n=423) of PV/LPV carriers, would not have been eligible for genetic testing. Based on NCCN management guidelines, up to 423 eligible patients would not have been offered annual breast MRI, 208 patients would not have been offered RRM, and 163 eligible patients would not have been offered RRSO. This lack of testing access due to misaligned medical policies also represents missed opportunities for offering potentially life-saving screening and risk reduction measures to these patients as well. Assuming lifetime cancer risks of 85% for breast cancer and 40% for ovarian cancer, and risk-reduction of 95% with RRM and 80% with RRSO. Had all policies matched NCCN testing criteria, up to 132 breast cancers could have potentially been detected earlier or prevented and 52 ovarian cancers could potentially have been prevented in our cohort. Conclusions: In addition to complicating clinical practice, varying testing guidelines have broader implications. Our data show that a significant number of mutation carriers are being missed by payer policies that deviate from NCCN testing criteria. In turn, this represents missed opportunities to offer proactive screening and risk-reduction options that could potentially save lives for those at risk for hereditary cancer. Based on findings from other studies, these actions would likely reduce health insurer costs as well. Citation Format: Robert T Pilarski, Stephanie Noble, Lily Hoang, Randy Hew, Stephanie Gandomi, Holly LaDuca, Jill Dolinsky. Inequitable access to genetic testing leads to missed screening and prevention opportunities for individuals at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-19.

oncology
Effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to inform decision making and improve uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals: A systematic review

Huanhuan Li,Si Chen,Dongfei Ma,Yingnan Zhao,Xu Zhang,Yijing Li,Guanglong Zhang,Jiao Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103928

IF: 8.1

2021-06-01

International Journal of Nursing Studies

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Background</h3><p>Inherited colorectal cancer syndromes increase the risk of contracting colorectal and other cancers. International guidelines recommend the identification of individuals with hereditary colorectal cancer and the supervision of asymptomatic individuals with a family history. However, detection of hereditary colorectal cancer is suboptimal. The prevalence of genetic counselling and testing for individuals with high genetic risk is low.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objective</h3><p>To identify, characterize and summarize patient-targeted interventions on improving the uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals and enhancing their informed decision making.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Design</h3><p>Systematic review.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Data Sources</h3><p>Six electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane library) were searched to identify eligible clinical trials from each database's inception to March 25, 2020. The reference lists of the included studies and reviews were checked for additional articles.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Review Methods</h3><p>Studies were screened and independently appraised by two reviewers using the standardized critical appraisal checklist for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies from the Joanna Briggs Institute. The results were tabulated and reported in descriptive format.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>Based on the inclusion criteria, 8 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included. The studies examined patient-targeted intervention strategies related to risk assessment, education, and decision aids. Outcomes included (1) informed decisions regarding microsatellite instability testing, (2) informed decisions concerning genetic testing, (3) genetic counselling and testing. Most of the included studies revealed that interventions had positive effects on the uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals and their informed decision making.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>There were few studies included in this review, and the results were inconsistent. Based on this review, the conclusion cannot be made that interventions for risk assessment, education, and decision aids have positive effects on the uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals and their informed decision making. However, to our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to summarize the effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to inform decision making and improve uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals. This review provides important evidence for related topics. Future studies with rigorous designs are recommended. Nurses have a crucial role in personalized health care. The involvement of nurses in collaboration with all the stakeholders in the development, implementation and evaluation of cancer genetic screening programs to improve genetic referral of individual at risk.</p>

nursing
Economic evaluation of germline genetic testing for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Sook Pin Goh,Siew Chin Ong,Jue Ern Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12038-7

IF: 4.638

2024-03-09

BMC Cancer

Abstract:Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer affecting women globally. Genetic testing serves as a prevention and treatment strategy for managing BC. This study aims to systematically review economic evaluations and the quality of selected studies involving genetic screening strategies for BC in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

oncology
Cost-Effectiveness of Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitors in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review

Vivien Kin Yi Chan,Runqing Yang,Ian Chi Kei Wong,Xue Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.891149

IF: 5.6

2022-07-11

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: PARP inhibitors have shown significant improvement in progression-free survival, but their costs cast a considerable financial burden. In line with value-based oncology, it is important to evaluate whether drug prices justify the outcomes. Objectives: The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate PARP inhibitors on 1) cost-effectiveness against the standard care, 2) impact on cost-effectiveness upon stratification for genetic characteristics, and 3) identify factors determining their cost-effectiveness, in four cancer types. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library using designated search terms, updated to 31 August 2021. Trial-based or modeling cost-effectiveness analyses of four FDA-approved PARP inhibitors were eligible. Other studies known to authors were included. Reference lists of selected articles were screened. Eligible studies were assessed for methodological and reporting quality before review. Results : A total of 20 original articles proceeded to final review. PARP inhibitors were not cost-effective as recurrence maintenance in advanced ovarian cancer despite improved performance upon genetic stratification. Cost-effectiveness was achieved when moved to upfront maintenance in a new diagnosis setting. Limited evidence indicated non–cost-effectiveness in metastatic breast cancer, mixed conclusions in metastatic pancreatic cancer, and cost-effectiveness in metastatic prostate cancer. Stratification by genetic testing displayed an effect on cost-effectiveness, given the plummeting ICER values when compared to the "treat-all" strategy. Drug cost was a strong determinant for cost-effectiveness in most models. Conclusions : In advanced ovarian cancer, drug use should be prioritized for upfront maintenance and for patients with BRCA mutation or BRCAness at recurrence. Additional economic evaluations are anticipated for novel indications.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Evaluation of Cancer-Based Criteria for Use in Mainstream BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer

Zoe Kemp,Alice Turnbull,Shawn Yost,Sheila Seal,Shazia Mahamdallie,Emma Poyastro-Pearson,Margaret Warren-Perry,Anthony Eccleston,Min-Min Tan,Soo Hwang Teo,Nicholas Turner,Ann Strydom,Angela George,Nazneen Rahman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.4428

2019-05-24

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: Increasing BRCA1 and BRCA2 (collectively termed herein as BRCA) gene testing is required to improve cancer management and prevent BRCA-related cancers.Objective: To evaluate mainstream genetic testing using cancer-based criteria in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and Participants: A quality improvement study and cost-effectiveness analysis of different BRCA testing selection criteria and access procedures to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and mutation detection performance was conducted at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust as part of the Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) Programme. Participants included 1184 patients with cancer who were undergoing genetic testing between September 1, 2013, and February 28, 2017.Main Outcomes and Measures: Mutation rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were the primary outcomes.Results: Of the 1184 patients (1158 women [97.8%]) meeting simple cancer-based criteria, 117 had a BRCA mutation (9.9%). The mutation rate was similar in retrospective United Kingdom (10.2% [235 of 2294]) and prospective Malaysian (9.7% [103 of 1061]) breast cancer studies. If traditional family history criteria had been used, more than 50% of the mutation-positive individuals would have been missed. Of the 117 mutation-positive individuals, 115 people (98.3%) attended their genetics appointment and cascade to relatives is underway in all appropriate families (85 of 85). Combining with the equivalent ovarian cancer study provides 5 simple cancer-based criteria for BRCA testing with a 10% mutation rate: (1) ovarian cancer; (2) breast cancer diagnosed when patients are 45 years or younger; (3) 2 primary breast cancers, both diagnosed when patients are 60 years or younger; (4) triple-negative breast cancer; and (5) male breast cancer. A sixth criterion-breast cancer plus a parent, sibling, or child with any of the other criteria-can be added to address family history. Criteria 1 through 5 are considered the MCG criteria, and criteria 1 through 6 are considered the MCGplus criteria. Testing using MCG or MCGplus criteria is cost-effective with cost-effectiveness ratios of $1330 per discounted QALYs and $1225 per discounted QALYs, respectively, and appears to lead to cancer and mortality reductions (MCG: 804 cancers, 161 deaths; MCGplus: 1020 cancers, 204 deaths per year over 50 years). Use of MCG or MCGplus criteria might allow detection of all BRCA mutations in patients with breast cancer in the United Kingdom through testing one-third of patients. Feedback questionnaires from 259 patients and 23 cancer team members (12 oncologists, 8 surgeons, and 3 nurse specialists) showed acceptability of the process with 100% of patients pleased they had genetic testing and 100% of cancer team members confident to approve patients for genetic testing. Use of MCGplus criteria also appeared to be time and resource efficient, requiring 95% fewer genetic consultations than the traditional process.Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that mainstream testing using simple, cancer-based criteria might be able to efficiently deliver consistent, cost-effective, patient-centered BRCA testing.

medicine, general & internal

INTERCOSTAL MUSCLE SPINDLE ACTIVITY AND ITS GAMMA MOTOR CONTROL.

Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer

The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

Economic evaluation of extended panel analysis in cancer patients with historical NHS diagnostic germline genetic testing - A modeling study based on real-world data

Cost-Effectiveness of Gene-Specific Prevention for Ovarian and Breast Cancer

Effect of ranolazine on left ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with coronary artery disease.

A New Paradigm Of Genetic Testing For Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancers

Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Testing Across Multiple Countries and Health Systems

Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing in Canada

A cost-utility analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk breast cancer patients and family members in Thailand: a cost-effective policy in resource-limited settings

Cost-Effectiveness of Genetic Testing for All Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in China

Cost-effectiveness of Genetic Testing of Endocrine Tumor Patients Using a Comprehensive Hereditary Cancer Gene Panel

Germline genetic testing in breast cancer: Rationale for the testing of all women diagnosed by the age of 60 years and for risk‐based testing of those older than 60 years

Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

Point/Counterpoint: Is It Time for Universal Germline Genetic Testing for all GI Cancers?

Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities

Abstract P2-09-19: Inequitable access to genetic testing leads to missed screening and prevention opportunities for individuals at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to inform decision making and improve uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals: A systematic review

Economic evaluation of germline genetic testing for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Cost-Effectiveness of Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitors in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review

Evaluation of Cancer-Based Criteria for Use in Mainstream BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer