Medicaid Expansions: Probing Medicaid's Filling of the Cancer Genetic Testing and Screening Space

Predictors of germline genetic testing referral and completion in ovarian cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictors of referral and completion of germline genetic testing among newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients, with a focus on geographic social deprivation, oncologist-level practices, and time between diagnosis and completion of testing.

METHODS

Clinical and sociodemographic data were abstracted from medical records of patients newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2014 and 2019 in the University of North Carolina Health System. Factors associated with referral for genetic counseling, completion of germline testing, and time between diagnosis and test results were identified using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

307/459 (67%) patients were referred for genetic counseling and 285/459 (62%) completed testing. The predicted probability of test completion was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) for patients with a referral compared to 0.27 (95% CI: 0.18-0.35) for patients without a referral. The predicted probability of referral was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.82) for patients at the 25th percentile of ZIP code-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and 0.67 (0.60-0.74) for patients at the 75th percentile of SDI. Referral varied by oncologist, with predicted probabilities ranging from 0.47 (95% CI: 0.32-0.62) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) across oncologists. The median time between diagnosis and test results was 137 days (IQR: 55-248 days). This interval decreased by a predicted 24.46 days per year (95% CI: 37.75-11.16).

CONCLUSIONS

We report relatively high germline testing and a promising trend in time from diagnosis to results, with variation by oncologist and patient factors. Automated referral, remote genetic counseling and sample collection, reduced out-of-pocket costs, and educational interventions should be explored.

Disparities in genetic testing for breast cancer among black and Hispanic women in the United States

Women from racial and ethnic minorities are at a higher risk for developing breast cancer. Despite significant advancements in breast cancer screening, treatment, and overall survival rates, disparities persist among Black and Hispanic women. These disparities manifest as breast cancer at an earlier age with worse prognosis, lower rates of genetic screening, higher rates of advanced-stage diagnosis, and higher rates of breast cancer mortality compared to Caucasian women. The underutilization of available resources, such as genetic testing, counseling, and risk assessment tools, by Black and Hispanic women is one of many reasons contributing to these disparities. This review aims to explore the racial disparities that exist in genetic testing among Black and Hispanic women. Barriers that contribute to racial disparities include limited access to resources, insufficient knowledge and awareness, inconsistent care management, and slow progression of incorporation of genetic data and information from women of racial/ethnic minorities into risk assessment models and genetic databases. These barriers continue to impede rates of genetic testing and counseling among Black and Hispanic mothers. Consequently, it is imperative to address these barriers to promote early risk assessment, genetic testing and counseling, early detection rates, and ultimately, lower mortality rates among women belonging to racial and ethnic minorities.

A cost-utility analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk breast cancer patients and family members in Thailand: a cost-effective policy in resource-limited settings

Background

Screening for germline pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants (gBRCA) in high-risk breast cancer patients is known to be cost-effective in high-income countries. Nationwide adoption of genetics testing in high-risk breast cancer population remains poor. Our study aimed to assess gBRCA health economics data in the middle-income country setting of Thailand.

Methods

Decision tree and Markov model were utilized to assess cost-utility between the testing vs. no-testing groups from a societal and lifetime perspective and lifetime. We interviewed 264 patients with breast/ovarian cancer and their family members to assess relevant costs and quality of life using EQ-5D-5L. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity (Monte Carlo simulation), and budget impact analyses were done to estimate the outcome under Thailand's Universal Health Coverage scheme.

Results

The predicted lifetime cost and Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALY) for those with breast cancer were $13,788 and 10.22 in the testing group and $13,702 and 10.07 in the no-testing group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for gBRCA testing in high-risk breast cancer patients was $573/QALY. The lifetime cost for the family members of those with gBRCA was $14,035 (QALY 9.99), while the no-testing family members group was $14,077 (QALY 9.98). Performing gBRCA testing in family members was cost-saving.

Conclusion

Cost-utility analysis demonstrated a cost-effective result of gBRCA testing in high-risk breast cancer patients and cost-saving in familial cascade testing. The result was endorsed in the national health benefits package in 2022. Other middle-income countries may observe the cost-effective/cost-saving aspects in common genetic diseases under their national health schemes.