Cost‐effectiveness of the McGill interactive pediatric oncogenetic guidelines in identifying Li–Fraumeni syndrome in female patients with osteosarcoma

Juan David Rios,Frances Simbulan,Lara Reichman,Kimberly Caswell,Melissa Tachdjian,David Malkin,Cecilia Cotton,Paul C. Nathan,Catherine Goudie,Petros Pechlivanoglou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.31077
2024-05-25
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Abstract:Background Li–Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a penetrant cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) associated with the development of many tumor types in young people including osteosarcoma and breast cancer (BC). The McGill Interactive Pediatric OncoGenetic Guidelines (MIPOGG) decision‐support tool provides a standardized approach to identify patients at risk of CPSs. Methods We conducted a cost–utility analysis, from the healthcare payer perspective, to compare MIPOGG‐guided, physician‐guided, and universal genetic testing strategies to detect LFS in female patients diagnosed at an age of less than 18 years with osteosarcoma. We developed a decision tree and discrete‐event simulation model to simulate the clinical and cost outcomes of the three genetic referral strategies on a cohort of female children diagnosed with osteosarcoma, especially focused on BC as subsequent cancer. Outcomes included BC incidence, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), healthcare costs, and incremental cost–utility ratios (ICURs). We conducted probabilistic and scenario analyses to assess the uncertainty surrounding model parameters. Results Compared to the physician‐guided testing, the MIPOGG‐guided strategy was marginally more expensive by 516; 1333 ( 1953) more costly and associated with 0.011 (−0.043; 0.064) additional QALYs. The ICUR for the MIPOGG strategy was 118,631/QALY when compared to the MIPOGG strategy. Discussion This study provides evidence for clinical and policy decision‐making on the cost‐effectiveness of genetic referral strategies to identify LFS in the setting of osteosarcoma. MIPOGG‐guided strategy was most likely to be cost‐effective at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold value of $50,000/QALY.
oncology,pediatrics,hematology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?