1
|
Minhinnick A, Santos-Gonzalez F, Wilson M, Lorgelly P. How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2025; 23:409-424. [PMID: 38980555 PMCID: PMC12053024 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00901-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/18/2024] [Indexed: 07/10/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify how value is defined in studies that focus on the value of molecular testing in cancer and the extent to which broadening the conceptualisation of value in healthcare has been applied in the molecular testing literature. METHODS A scoping review was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance. Medline, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in August 2023. Articles were eligible if they reported costs relative to outcomes, novel costs, or novel outcomes of molecular testing in cancer. Results were synthesised and qualitative content analysis was performed with deductive and inductive frameworks. RESULTS Ninety-one articles were included in the review. The majority (75/91) were conventional economic analyses (comparative economic evaluations and budget impact assessments) and undertaken from a healthcare system perspective (38/91). Clinical outcomes dominate the assessment of value (61/91), with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) the most common outcome measure (45/91). Other definitions of value were diverse (e.g. psychological impact, access to trials), inconsistent, and largely not in keeping with evolving guidance. CONCLUSIONS Broader concepts of value were not commonly described in the molecular testing literature focusing on cancer. Conventional approaches to measuring the health costs and outcomes of molecular testing in cancer prevail with little focus on non-clinical elements of value. There are emerging reports of non-clinical outcomes of testing information, particularly psychological consequences. Intrinsic attributes of the testing process and preferences of those who receive testing information may determine the realised societal value of molecular testing and highlight challenges to implementing such a value framework.
Collapse
|
2
|
Beigh M, Vagher J, Codden R, Maese LD, Cook S, Gammon A. Newborn Screening for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: Patient Perspectives. RESEARCH SQUARE 2024:rs.3.rs-4351728. [PMID: 38798617 PMCID: PMC11118696 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4351728/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2024]
Abstract
Background Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 3,000-5,000 individuals. LFS poses a significant cancer risk throughout the lifespan, with notable cancer susceptibility in childhood. Despite being predominantly inherited, up to 20% of cases arise de novo. Surveillance protocols facilitate the reduction of mortality and morbidity through early cancer detection. While newborn screening (NBS) has proven effective in identifying newborns with rare genetic conditions, even those occurring as rarely as 1 in 185,000, its potential for detecting inherited cancer predispositions remains largely unexplored. Methods This survey-based study investigates perspectives toward NBS for LFS among individuals with and parents of children with LFS receiving care at single comprehensive cancer center in the U.S. Results All participants unanimously supported NBS for LFS (n = 24). Reasons included empowerment (83.3%), control (66.7%), and peace of mind (54.2%), albeit with concerns about anxiety (62.5%) and devastation (50%) related to receiving positive results. Participants endorsed NBS as beneficial for cancer detection and prevention (91.7%), research efforts (87.5%), and family planning (79.2%) but voiced apprehensions about the financial cost of cancer surveillance (62.5%), emotional burdens (62.5%), and insurance coverage and discrimination (54.2%). Approximately 83% of respondents believed that parental consent should be required to screen newborns for LFS. Conclusion This study revealed strong support for NBS for LFS despite the recognition of various perceived benefits and risks. These findings underscore the complex interplay between clinical, psychosocial, and ethical factors in considering NBS for LFS from the perspective of the LFS community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Rachel Codden
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah
| | | | - Sabina Cook
- Utah Department of Health and Human Services
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kunst N, Siu A, Drummond M, Grimm SE, Grutters J, Husereau D, Koffijberg H, Rothery C, Wilson ECF, Heath A. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2023; 26:1461-1473. [PMID: 37414276 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.06.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2023] [Revised: 05/27/2023] [Accepted: 06/20/2023] [Indexed: 07/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalia Kunst
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, England, UK; Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
| | - Annisa Siu
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michael Drummond
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, England, UK
| | - Sabine E Grimm
- Department of Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht Health Economics and Technology Assessment (Maastricht HETA) Center, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Janneke Grutters
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Hendrik Koffijberg
- Department of Health Technology & Services Research, TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Claire Rothery
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, England, UK
| | - Edward C F Wilson
- Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, England, UK
| | - Anna Heath
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Biostatistics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Xi Q, Jin S, Morris S. Economic evaluations of predictive genetic testing: A scoping review. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0276572. [PMID: 37531363 PMCID: PMC10395838 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276572] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2022] [Accepted: 04/03/2023] [Indexed: 08/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Predictive genetic testing can provide information about whether or not someone will develop or is likely to develop a specific condition at a later stage in life. Economic evaluation can assess the value of money for such testing. Studies on the economic evaluation of predictive genetic testing have been carried out in a variety of settings, and this research aims to conduct a scoping review of findings from these studies. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases with combined search terms, from 2019 to 2022. Relevant studies from 2013 to 2019 in a previous systematic review were also included. The study followed the recommended stages for undertaking a scoping review. A total of 53 studies were included, including 33 studies from the previous review and 20 studies from the search of databases. A significant number of studies focused on the US, UK, and Australia (34%, 23%, and 11%). The most frequently included health conditions were cancer and cardiovascular diseases (68% and 19%). Over half of the studies compared predictive genetic testing with no genetic testing, and the majority of them concluded that at least some type of genetic testing was cost-effective compared to no testing (94%). Some studies stated that predictive genetic testing is becoming more cost-effective with the trend of lowering genetic testing costs. Studies on predictive genetic testing covered various health conditions, particularly cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Most studies indicated that predictive genetic testing is cost-effective compared to no testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qin Xi
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Shihan Jin
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America
| | - Stephen Morris
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Christensen KD, McMahon PM, Galbraith LN, Yeh JM, Stout NK, Lu CY, Stein S, Zhao M, Hylind RJ, Wu AC. Benefits, harms, and costs of newborn genetic screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Estimates from the PreEMPT model. Genet Med 2023; 25:100797. [PMID: 36727595 PMCID: PMC10168130 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100797] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2022] [Revised: 01/20/2023] [Accepted: 01/23/2023] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Population newborn genetic screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is feasible, however its benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness are uncertain. METHODS We developed a microsimulation model to simulate a US birth cohort of 3.7 million newborns. Those identified with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of HCM underwent surveillance and recommended treatment, whereas in usual care, individuals with family histories of HCM underwent surveillance. RESULTS In a cohort of 3.7 million newborns, newborn genetic screening would reduce HCM-related deaths through age 20 years by 44 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] = 10-103) however increase the numbers of children undergoing surveillance by 8127 (95% UI = 6308-9664). Compared with usual care, newborn genetic screening costs $267,000 per life year saved (95% UI, $106,000 to $919,000 per life year saved). CONCLUSION Newborn genetic screening for HCM could prevent deaths but at a high cost and would require many healthy children to undergo surveillance. This study shows how modeling can provide insights into the tradeoffs between benefits and costs that will need to be considered as newborn genetic screening is more widely adopted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kurt D Christensen
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA.
| | - Pamela M McMahon
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Lauren N Galbraith
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA
| | - Jennifer M Yeh
- Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Natasha K Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Christine Y Lu
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Sarah Stein
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA
| | | | - Robyn J Hylind
- Inherited Cardiac Arrhythmia Program, Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital Boston, MA
| | - Ann Chen Wu
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA; Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Shahani SA, Marcotte EL. Landscape of germline cancer predisposition mutations testing and management in pediatrics: Implications for research and clinical care. Front Pediatr 2022; 10:1011873. [PMID: 36225340 PMCID: PMC9548803 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.1011873] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 09/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
As germline genetic testing capacities have improved over the last two decades, increasingly more people are newly diagnosed with germline cancer susceptibility mutations. In the wake of this growth, there remain limitations in both testing strategies and translation of these results into morbidity- and mortality-reducing practices, with pediatric populations remaining especially vulnerable. To face the challenges evoked by an expanding diversity of germline cancer mutations, we can draw upon a model cancer-associated genetic condition for which we have developed a breadth of expertise in managing, Trisomy 21. We can additionally apply advances in other disciplines, such as oncofertility and pharmacogenomics, to enhance care delivery. Herein, we describe the history of germline mutation testing, epidemiology of known germline cancer mutations and their associations with childhood cancer, testing limitations, and future directions for research and clinical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shilpa A Shahani
- Department of Pediatrics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, United States
| | - Erin L Marcotte
- Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.,Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States
| |
Collapse
|