Breaking News
January 17, 2018 - Top nutrients needed to boost mood and energy levels on Blue Monday
January 17, 2018 - Scientists develop unique technique to map elasticity of cell components
January 17, 2018 - Obesity surgery reduces the risk of death by half finds new study
January 17, 2018 - Raw Meat Not the Safest Choice for Your Dog or for You
January 17, 2018 - High-Dose Aspirin Preferred for Kawasaki’s
January 17, 2018 - Study suggests risk management approach to combat EMS fatigue
January 17, 2018 - A new therapy against obesity
January 17, 2018 - Doctors warn against holding your nose and closing your mouth to contain a sneeze
January 17, 2018 - Measles outbreak alarms public health officials
January 17, 2018 - FDA Slaps Class Warning on Gadolinium Contrast Agents
January 17, 2018 - Distinct human mutations can alter the effect of medicine
January 17, 2018 - ASIT biotech’s new article presents clinical results of gp
January 17, 2018 - Alternative tobacco use by adolescents associated with greater odds of future cigarette smoking
January 17, 2018 - A High-Salt Diet Produces Dementia In Mice
January 17, 2018 - Scientists provide insights into crucial interaction for DNA repair
January 17, 2018 - Sanofi and Regeneron Announce Positive Topline Pivotal Results for PD-1 Antibody Cemiplimab in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma
January 17, 2018 - Morning Break: Pfizer Kills AD/PD Pipeline; Trump Affirms His Mental Health; Humira Pricing Strategy
January 17, 2018 - Researchers see gene influencing performance of sleep-deprived people
January 17, 2018 - Fast food triggers the immune system making it hyperactive
January 17, 2018 - Scientists find increased risk of HIV outbreaks in Ukraine due to war-related migration
January 17, 2018 - New universal flu vaccine moves to clinical trial phase and could be a reality soon
January 17, 2018 - Cocaine de-addiction breakthrough shows promise
January 17, 2018 - FDA Accepts New Drug Application for Seysara (sarecycline) for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Acne
January 17, 2018 - Robotic Telestenting; BP Cuff Smartwatch; Medicare Bundled Care
January 17, 2018 - New cellular approach found to control progression of chronic kidney disease
January 17, 2018 - Lamprey genes provide clues to repair spinal cord damage, finds study
January 17, 2018 - Tissue-based soft robot could lead to advances in bio-inspired robotics
January 17, 2018 - Mostly the healthy and wealthy Americans use mobile phone apps to track sleep habits
January 17, 2018 - FDA Alert: Varubi (rolapitant) Injectable Emulsion: Health Care Provider Letter
January 16, 2018 - NeuroBreak: Rough Days for Neuroscience Research; Another Migraine Drug Advances
January 16, 2018 - The ‘greatest pandemic in history’ was 100 years ago – but many of us still get the basic facts wrong
January 16, 2018 - Serena Williams Shares Childbirth Ordeal
January 16, 2018 - The Artificial Brain as Doctor
January 16, 2018 - Type 2 diabetes has hepatic origins
January 16, 2018 - Expert discusses how to identify, support individuals with drug or alcohol addiction in workplace
January 16, 2018 - Starting menstruation early increases risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke in later life
January 16, 2018 - CapsoVision receives CE Mark approval for use of CapsoCam Plus System in pediatric patients
January 16, 2018 - Researchers develop new dynamic statistical model to follow gene expressions over time
January 16, 2018 - Alzheimer’s ‘looks like me, it looks like you’
January 16, 2018 - By the Numbers: Physicians’ Economic Impact
January 16, 2018 - Sound Health | NIH News in Health
January 16, 2018 - Modifying baby formula doesn’t prevent type 1 diabetes in children
January 16, 2018 - Energy drinks dangerous for kids
January 16, 2018 - When you need a breast screening, should you get a 3-D mammogram?
January 16, 2018 - Johns Hopkins gets approval to perform HIV positive to HIV positive living donor kidney transplants
January 16, 2018 - The Salk Institute and Indivumed collaborate for cutting-edge cancer research
January 16, 2018 - Study reveals negative long-term effects of heavy cannabis use on brain function and behavior
January 16, 2018 - Many gym-goers injure themselves by pushing harder to be better than friends
January 16, 2018 - Risankizumab Meets All Primary Endpoints Reporting Positive Results in Fourth Pivotal Phase 3 Psoriasis Study
January 16, 2018 - Federal Junk Food Tax Feasible, Study Says
January 16, 2018 - Do girls have stronger teeth than boys?
January 16, 2018 - New high-sensitivity blood tests could aid faster diagnosis and treatment for heart attack
January 16, 2018 - How fatal mitochondrial diseases may strike offspring of families with no history of the conditions
January 16, 2018 - TherapeuticsMD Announces FDA Acceptance of New Drug Application and Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) Date for TX-004HR
January 16, 2018 - Morning Break: Food Pharmacies; Obamacare Sign-ups Dip; Top Pot Studies
January 16, 2018 - Blood pressure declines 14 to 18 years before death
January 16, 2018 - ViLim Ball technology helps reduce uncontrollable shaking hands
January 16, 2018 - Researchers use immune-mimicking biomaterial scaffolds to fast track T cell therapies
January 16, 2018 - In Wisconsin, hopes rise for production of a lifesaving radioactive isotope
January 16, 2018 - Researchers develop software to better predict risk of leakage around aortic stents
January 16, 2018 - Bile acids could directly burn away lipids in the fat depots
January 16, 2018 - Cycling does not negatively impact sexual and urinary health finds study
January 16, 2018 - Severe peer victimization in childhood may contribute to mental health issues in adolescence
January 16, 2018 - Exelixis Announces U.S. FDA Approval of Cabometyx (cabozantinib) Tablets for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma
January 16, 2018 - Just How Often Do Patients Turn Post-Surgical Opioids Into a Habit?
January 16, 2018 - Opioid addiction – Genetics Home Reference
January 16, 2018 - Incomplete revascularization in PCI linked to higher mortality
January 16, 2018 - Machine learning algorithm uses brain scans to predict language ability in deaf children
January 16, 2018 - Penn scientists identify new therapeutic target for treatment of melanoma
January 16, 2018 - The London Clinic exhibits innovative technology to treat Parkinson’s disease at Arab Health
January 16, 2018 - Early influenza testing is critical to prevent serious complications
January 16, 2018 - Study Gets to the Core of Back Pain in Runners
January 16, 2018 - Year in Review: Ophthalmology | Medpage Today
January 16, 2018 - ClinicalTrials.gov: Marijuana Use
January 16, 2018 - Researchers create novel compound targeting melanoma cells
January 16, 2018 - FDA grants approval for first drug to treat inherited breast cancer
January 16, 2018 - Researchers develop remote-controlled mechanogenetics system to target and kill cancer cells
January 16, 2018 - Fresh, Frozen Embryos Equal in IVF
January 16, 2018 - Research shows biological clocks could improve brain cancer treatment
January 16, 2018 - Dire view from within accident and emergency wards of England and Wales
Common gene test to predict breast cancer recurrence may not be cost-effective

Common gene test to predict breast cancer recurrence may not be cost-effective

image_pdfDownload PDFimage_print

The most commonly used gene expression profile test used to help predict breast cancer recurrence may not be as cost-effective as once thought, say a team of researchers led by Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Their study, published January 8 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (“Cost-Effectiveness of Gene-expression Profile Testing in Community Practice”), is the first to look at the cost effectiveness of the test, Oncotype DX®, in “real world” circumstances. Oncotype DX samples 21 different gene arrays to gauge risk of early stage, favorable prognosis tumors coming back later and spreading to other parts of the body (“distant recurrence”) and can be very useful to help patients and their doctors decide if chemotherapy benefits will outweigh its risks. Patients with results indicating low-risk can consider forgoing chemotherapy, while those with high-risk results are recommended to have chemotherapy.

The new research takes into account who was tested; how many patients were determined by the test to be at high risk of breast cancer recurrence, but did not act on treatment recommendations for chemotherapy; and conversely, how many patients were determined to be at lower risk of recurrence, but chose to get chemotherapy. The study also examined the impact of test accuracy on its cost-effectiveness.

Previous studies of the costs and benefits of Oncotype DX were conducted assuming ideal conditions: all patients got the test, physicians and patients used the test’s score to dictate treatment, and the test had prefect prediction of recurrence. Under such ideal conditions past researchers concluded that the benefit of Oncotype DX was reasonable by current standards relative to its costs (between about $3,500 to $4,200). The new study shows that the less than perfect accuracy is one of the factors that make the test less cost-effective than previously thought.

“As with all new technology, it’s important to assess real-world implementation to ensure what we’re offering patients is useful to them and doesn’t add to the societal and patient cost-burden, which is already very high in cancer care,” says the study’s lead author, Young Chandler, DrPH, MS, MPH, assistant professor of oncology at Georgetown University School of Medicine and a member of Georgetown Lombardi.

“Under idealized conditions, this test is considered cost effective. But by looking at national data, our economic analysis found that the likely cost-effectiveness ratio for Oncotype DX testing in community practice was higher than the ratios for the most commonly accepted diagnostic and preventive interventions,” says the study’s senior author, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, MPH, professor in the departments of oncology and medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine and a member of Georgetown Lombardi.

“There has long been ongoing debate about what is good value for the money spent in oncology care. This study suggests that it will be critical to consider actual community practice in making such determinations,” says Mandelblatt.

In this study, investigators looked at the “usual care” costs and effects for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000-2004 (before use of genetic predictive tests) and compared the numbers with patients diagnosed from 2005-2012, when Oncotype DX was available to community physicians. In the usual care scenario, patients could receive chemotherapy or not based on their age and breast cancer stage, and in the Oncotype DX testing period, patients were either tested or not, and received chemotherapy based on age, stage, test use, and test results.

Using population data from the National Cancer Institute along with other large data banks, the research team conducted one hundred million simulations to account for uncertainty, inflation, and the benefit of assurance versus worry, among other variables. They found that community practice Oncotype test rates between 2005-2012 were 24 percent and chemotherapy use rate was 30 percent. Patients younger than age 50 who were tested had lower chemotherapy rates than untested patients. Among older patients, there was more chemotherapy use among tested compared to untested patients. These patterns resulted in a greater proportion of tested patients who were destined to have distant recurrences receiving chemotherapy.

But in community practice, test results also sometimes resulted in decisions contrary to test findings ­-;17 to 26 percent of patients with high-recurrence risk scores did not receive chemotherapy as guidelines recommend, and 8 percent of patients with low-risk scores opted to receive chemotherapy.

The researchers found the cost effectiveness ratio for testing versus usual care (no use of the genetic test) was $188,125 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Cost effectiveness for ideal conditions was $39,496 per QALY (more similar to earlier estimates). In the United States, $50,000 QALY was the first benchmark for where the benefits and usage were thought to be reasonable in relation to what is paid for them. Now, many accept a range of $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY, Mandelblatt says.

In their study, if the test was perfectly accurate, the cost-effectiveness ratio of Oncotype DX would be $28,947 QALY, she says. “But given the impact of other genes and factors not considered by this test, some people with low risk breast cancer will recur, and some people with high risk cancer will never recur, making the test have less-than-perfect accuracy.”

Still, benefits to patients are highest relative to costs in the small proportion of women at highest risk of recurrence that would not otherwise be treated without testing,” Mandelblatt says. “That is where such testing really shines.”

Source:

https://gumc.georgetown.edu/

Tagged with:

About author

Related Articles