A micro costing of NHS cancer genetic services

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.

Costing Methods as a Means to Measure the Costs of Pharmacogenomics Testing

Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine interventions relies on addressing important financial aspects of the delivery of genetic testing to the patients, be it from public or private providers. Details on how to determine the cost items of the genetic testing are often limited. The goal of this study is to present a costing methodology in order to estimate and measure the costs as far as the technical process of pharmacogenomics testing is concerned. Moreover, an overall cost mindset strategy based on the selective genotyping workflow to guide specialized laboratories of interest effectively is provided. We particularly accounted for the resources consumed within the laboratory premises such as cost of reagents for DNA isolation, cost of consumables, cost of personnel, while costs associated with patient recruitment, blood sample collection and maintenance, administration costs in the hospital, and costs of blood sample shipment were not taken into consideration. Our article presents the first-time detailed information on a costing framework for pharmacogenomic testing that could be employed to laboratories involved in routine clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics.

A Micro-Costing Study of Screening for Lynch Syndrome-Associated Pathogenic Variants in an Unselected Endometrial Cancer Population: Cheap as NGS Chips?

Background: Lynch syndrome is the most common inherited cause of endometrial cancer. Identifying individuals affected by Lynch syndrome enables risk-reducing interventions including colorectal surveillance, and cascade testing of relatives.

Methods: We conducted a micro-costing study of screening all women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome using one of four diagnostic strategies combining tumor microsatellite instability testing (MSI), immunohistochemistry (IHC), and/or MLH1 methylation testing, and germline next generation sequencing (NGS). Resource use (consumables, capital equipment, and staff) was identified through direct observation and laboratory protocols. Published sources were used to identify unit costs to calculate a per-patient cost (£; 2017) of each testing strategy, assuming a National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Results: Tumor triage with MSI and reflex MLH1 methylation testing followed by germline NGS of women with likely Lynch syndrome was the cheapest strategy at £42.01 per case. Tumor triage with IHC and reflex MLH1 methylation testing of MLH1 protein-deficient cancers followed by NGS of women with likely Lynch syndrome cost £45.68. Tumor triage with MSI followed by NGS of all women found to have tumor microsatellite instability cost £78.95. Immediate germline NGS of all women with endometrial cancer cost £176.24. The cost of NGS was affected by the skills and time needed to interpret results (£44.55/patient).

Conclusion: This study identified the cost of reflex screening all women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome, which can be used in a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis to understand the added value of introducing reflex screening into clinical practice.

Direct costs of radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a microcosting study

Background

Radiotherapy provides significant benefits in terms of reducing risk of local recurrence and death from rectal cancer. Despite this, up-to-date cost estimates for radiotherapy are lacking, potentially inhibiting policy and decision-making. Our objective was to generate an up-to-date estimate of the cost of traditional radiotherapy for rectal cancer and model the impact of a range of potential efficiency improvements.

Methods

Microcosting methods were used to estimate total direct radiotherapy costs for long- (assumed at 45-50 Gy in 25 daily fractions over a 5 week period) and short-courses (assumed at 25 Gy in 5 daily fractions over a one week period). Following interviews and on-site visits to radiotherapy departments in two designated cancer centers, a radiotherapy care pathway for a typical rectal cancer patient was developed. Total direct costs were derived by applying fixed and variable unit costs to resource use within each care phase. Costs included labor, capital, consumables and overheads. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Radiotherapy treatment was estimated to cost between €2,080 (5-fraction course) and €3,609 (25-fraction course) for an average patient in 2012. Costs were highest in the treatment planning phase for the short-course (€1,217; 58% of total costs), but highest in the radiation treatment phase for the long-course (€1,974: 60% of total costs). By simultaneously varying treatment time, capacity utilization rates and linear accelerator staff numbers, the base cost fell by 20% for 5-fractions: (€1,660) and 35% for 25-fractions: (€2,354).

Conclusions

Traditional radiotherapy for rectal cancer is relatively inexpensive. Moreover, significant savings may be achievable through service organization and provision changes. These results suggest that a strong economic argument can be made for expanding the use of radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment.

Microcosting quantity data collection methods

BACKGROUND

Microcosting studies collect detailed data on resources used and the value of those resources. Such studies are useful for estimating the cost of new technologies or new community-based interventions, for producing estimates in studies that include nonmarket goods, and for studying within-procedure cost variation.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this article were to (1) describe basic microcosting methods focusing on quantity data collection; and (2) suggest a research agenda to improve methods in and the interpretation of microcosting.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Examples in the published literature were used to illustrate steps in the methods of gathering data (primarily quantity data) for a microcosting study.

RESULTS

Quantity data collection methods that were illustrated in the literature include the use of (1) administrative databases at single facilities, (2) insurer administrative data, (3) forms applied across multiple settings, (4) an expert panel, (5) surveys or interviews of one or more types of providers; (6) review of patient charts, (7) direct observation, (8) personal digital assistants, (9) program operation logs, and (10) diary data.

CONCLUSIONS

Future microcosting studies are likely to improve if research is done to compare the validity and cost of different data collection methods; if a critical review is conducted of studies done to date; and if the combination of the results of the first 2 steps described are used to develop guidelines that address common limitations, critical judgment points, and decisions that can reduce limitations and improve the quality of studies.

Can we assume that research participants are utility maximisers?

The objective of this study was to experimentally examine by means of an information manipulation if respondents are adhering to the utility theory axiom of utility maximisation. A repeated measure experimental design was used. Assessments were conducted pre- and post-intervention with self-administered questionnaires. The study participants were 158 (142 after exclusions) first year undergraduate students, Bangor University (UK). The intervention-information manipulation-did not induce the hypothesised changes in the perceived pros and cons of, or desire for, genetic testing and counselling for breast cancer; correlation revealed a weak relationship between the pros and cons of and desire for testing and counselling. We conclude that there was no evidence of utility maximisation-the key tenet of utility theory-being used. Given the contradiction between the findings of this study and others, there is a need to conduct further research into utility maximisation.

The costs of colonoscopy in a Canadian hospital using a microcosting approach

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy has become accepted as one of the most effective methods of screening patients for colorectal cancer, and is used to remove the majority of colonic adenomas.

OBJECTIVE

Because of the paucity of such estimates in the literature and the significant number of candidates for this procedure, the present study was performed to estimate the direct hospital costs of both diagnostic and therapeutic (polypectomy) colonoscopy.

METHODS

A microcosting methodology was used to itemize the costs of colonoscopy. Variable and fixed costs were divided into labour, supplies, equipment and overhead costs. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. All costs are expressed in 2007 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

The cost of a diagnostic colonoscopy was $157 and the cost of a therapeutic colonoscopy was $199. Overhead costs represented approximately 30% of these amounts. When physician fees were added, these costs rose to $352 and $467, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Because the overhead costs represent a large proportion of the total costs, allocation methods for these costs should be improved to allow for a more precise determination of the total costs of a colonoscopy. These estimates are useful when analyzing the cost-effectiveness of a strategy that uses colonoscopy when screening for colorectal cancer.

Patient preferences and National Health Service costs: a cost-consequences analysis of cancer genetic services

The study has three aims; firstly to establish if, having been informed of their risk status and that gene testing is inappropriate for them, low and moderate risk patients have misunderstood or failed to grasp this and want a test that is inappropriate for them. Secondly, to elicit patients' willingness to pay for cancer genetic services. Thirdly, to ascertain the aspects of cancer genetics services that are important to high risk patients and present service configurations prioritised in terms of preferences accompanied by their costs (cost-consequences analysis). Patient preferences were gathered from 120 patients returning a self-administered discrete choice questionnaire issued post genetic risk assessment. Patients at low and moderate risk of developing breast cancer desired inappropriate testing. Patients at high, moderate and low risk of developing genetic cancer were willing to pay up to 3,000 pounds for genetic serviced, which exceeds the current estimated cost of providing testing and counselling. Counselling by a genetics associate accompanied by favourable levels of other attributes provided high utility and substantial cost savings.

How to establish a high-risk cancer genetics clinic: Limitations and successes

The development of technology to locate and isolate cancer susceptibility genes has brought together the fields of oncology, cancer control, genetics, and genetic counseling to create a new specialty of cancer risk counseling with the goal to communicate more accurate information about personal cancer risk profiles based on personal and family histories. As cancer risk assessment and counseling services become standard of care in medical practice, their availability is increasingly moving from comprehensive cancer centers and academic institutions to community settings. High-risk cancer genetics clinics in the community face several challenges, including staffing, time commitment, costs, and unique quality control issues. The societal benefits include a more educated public armed with the information needed to make health decisions appropriate for the individual level of risk.