Cost-effectiveness of BRCA1/2 mutation profiling to target olaparib use in patients with metastatic breast cancer

The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Genomic medicine offers an unprecedented opportunity to improve cancer outcomes through prevention, early detection and precision therapy. Health policy makers worldwide are developing strategies to embed genomic medicine in routine cancer care. Successful translation of genomic medicine, however, remains slow. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise published evidence on the cost effectiveness of genomic medicine in cancer control. The insights could support efforts to accelerate access to cost-effective applications of human genomics.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024480842), and the review was conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. The search was run in four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and EconLit. Full economic evaluations of genomic technologies at any stage of cancer care, and published after 2018 and in English, were included for data extraction.

RESULTS

The review identified 137 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Most economic evaluations focused on the prevention and early detection stage (n = 44; 32%), the treatment stage (n = 36; 26%), and managing relapsed, refractory or progressive disease (n = 51, 37%). Convergent cost-effectiveness evidence was identified for the prevention and early detection of breast and ovarian cancer, and for colorectal and endometrial cancers. For cancer treatment, the use of genomic testing for guiding therapy was highly likely to be cost effective for breast and blood cancers. Studies reported that genomic medicine was cost effective for advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. There was insufficient or mixed evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of genomic medicine in the management of other cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review mapped out the cost-effectiveness evidence of genomic medicine across the cancer care continuum. Gaps in the literature mean that potentially cost-effective uses of genomic medicine in cancer control, for example rare cancers or cancers of unknown primary, may be being overlooked. Evidence on the value of information and budget impact are critical, and advancements in methods to include distributional effects, system capacity and consumer preferences will be valuable. Expanding the current cost-effectiveness evidence base is essential to enable the sustainable and equitable translation of genomic medicine.

A review of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for germline variants in familial cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted germline testing is recommended for those with or at risk of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. The affordability of genetic sequencing has improved over the past decade, therefore the cost-effectiveness of testing for these cancers is worthy of reassessment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review economic evaluations on cost-effectiveness of germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A search of PubMed and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies on germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer, published between 1999 and May 2022. Synthesis of methodology, cost-effectiveness, and reporting (CHEERS checklist) was performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; in 2021-adjusted US$) for germline testing versus the standard care option in hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (HBOC) across target settings were as follows: (1) population-wide testing: 344-2.5 million/QALY; (2) women with high-risk: dominant = 78,118/QALY, 8,337-59,708/LYG; (3) existing breast or ovarian cancer: 3,012-72,566/QALY, 39,835/LYG; and (4) metastatic breast cancer: 158,630/QALY. Likewise, ICERs of germline testing for colorectal cancer across settings were: (1) population-wide testing: 132,200/QALY, 1.1 million/LYG; (2) people with high-risk: 32,322-76,750/QALY, dominant = 353/LYG; and (3) patients with existing colorectal cancer: dominant = 54,122/QALY, 98,790-6.3 million/LYG. Key areas of underreporting were the inclusion of a health economic analysis plan (100% of HBOC and colorectal studies), engagement of patients and stakeholders (95.4% of HBOC, 100% of colorectal studies) and measurement of outcomes (18.2% HBOC, 38.9% of colorectal studies).

CONCLUSION

Germline testing for HBOC was likely to be cost-effective across most settings, except when used as a co-dependent technology with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib in metastatic breast cancer. In colorectal cancer studies, testing was cost-effective in those with high-risk, but inconclusive in other settings. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the prevalence of tested variants, cost of testing, uptake, and benefits of prophylactic measures. Policy advice on germline testing should emphasize the importance of these factors in their recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness of PARP inhibitors in malignancies: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) have become a mainstay for the treatment of BRCA-mutant malignancies. PARPis are likely to be more effective but also bring an increase in costs. Thus, we aimed at evaluating the cost effectiveness of PARPis in the treatment of malignancies.

METHODS

Studies of cost effectiveness of PARPis were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Key information was extracted from the identified studies and reviewed. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Modeling techniques, measurement of parameters and uncertainty analysis were analyzed across studies. Interventions and cost-effectiveness results were reported stratified by patient population.

RESULTS

Among the 25 studies identified, we included 17 on ovarian cancer, 2 on breast cancer, 3 on pancreatic cancer, and 3 on prostate cancer that involved olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib. All studies had a QHES score of above 75. In the maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer, additional administration of olaparib was cost-effective for newly diagnosed patients after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy but was not cost-effective for platinum-sensitive recurrent patients in majority studies. However, the economic value of other PARPis in ovarian cancer as well as all PARPis in other tumors remained controversial. Cost-effectiveness of PARPi was primarily impacted by the costs of PARPi, survival time, health utility and discount rate. Moreover, genetic testing improved the cost-effectiveness of PARPi treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

PARPi is potentially cost-effective for patients with ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer. Genetic testing can improve the cost-effectiveness of PARPi.

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

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.

Is olaparib cost effective in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one favorable gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM?

Aim: To compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib versus control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM from the US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties. Results: The base-case result indicated that, for patients with specific gene mutations, olaparib gained 1.26 QALYs and USD$157,732 total cost. Compared with control treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olaparib was USD$248,248/QALY. The price of olaparib was the most influential parameter. Conclusion: Olaparib is not cost effective in comparison with control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with specific gene mutations.

Prevalence of mutations in BRCA and homologous recombination repair genes and real-world standard of care of Asian patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer starting first-line systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy: subgroup analysis of the global BREAKOUT study

Background

The multinational BREAKOUT study (NCT03078036) sought to determine the prevalence of germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) and somatic BRCA1/2 (sBRCA1/2) mutations and mutations in other homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes in women with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) starting first-line chemotherapy.

Methods

Genetic testing for gBRCA, sBRCA, and HRR gene mutations was performed in patients who started first-line chemotherapy for MBC in the last 90 days (341 patients across 14 countries) who were not selected based on risk factors for gBRCA mutations. We report data from the Asian cohort, which included patients in Japan (7 sites), South Korea (10 sites), and Taiwan (8 sites).

Results

Of 116 patients screened, 104 patients were enrolled in the Asian cohort. The median age was 53.0 (range 25–87) years. gBRCA1/2, gBRCA1, and gBRCA2 mutations were detected in 10.6% (11/104), 5.8% (6/104), and 4.8% (5/104) of patients, respectively; none had mutations in both gBRCA1 and gBRCA2. gBRCA1/2 mutations were detected in 10.0% (6/60) and 11.6% (5/43) of patients with hormone receptor-positive and triple-negative MBC, respectively. HRR gene mutations were tested in 48 patients without gBRCA mutations, and 5 (10.4%) had at least one HRR mutation in sBRCA, ATM, PALB2, and CHEK2.

Conclusion

We report for the first time the prevalence of gBRCA and HRR mutations in an Asian cohort of patients with HER2-negative MBC. Our results suggest that BRCA mutation testing is valuable to determine appropriate treatment options for patients with hormone receptor-positive or triple-negative MBC.

Study registration

NCT03078036.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12282-021-01283-4.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation Based on the POLO Trial

Objective

The phase III POLO trial demonstrated that olaparib as maintenance therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a germline BRCA mutation had greater efficacy than placebo, but maintenance olaparib places an economic burden on patients. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib as maintenance therapy based on the POLO trial (NCT02184195).

Methods

A three-state Markov model (progression-free survival [PFS], progressive disease [PD] and death) based on data from the POLO trial was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of maintenance olaparib versus placebo for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a germline BRCA mutation. The cost was evaluated from the Chinese society’s perspective, and health outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was the ICER gained in terms of 2019 US$ per QALY. Model robustness was explored with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Compared with placebo, maintenance olaparib increased costs by $23,544.35 while gaining 0.69 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $34,122.25 per QALY. The ICER was far higher than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($28,255.55 per QALY).

Conclusion

Compared with placebo, maintenance olaparib for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a germline BRCA mutation is not cost-effective in China.