Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Genetic Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

Economic evaluation of germline genetic testing for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer affecting women globally. Genetic testing serves as a prevention and treatment strategy for managing BC. This study aims to systematically review economic evaluations and the quality of selected studies involving genetic screening strategies for BC in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

A search was performed to identify related articles that were published up to April 2023 on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Only English-language LMIC studies were included. Synthesis of studies characteristics, methodological and data input variations, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist) were performed.

RESULTS

This review found five pertinent studies, mainly focusing on economic evaluations of germline genetic testing in upper-middle-income countries (Upper MICs) like Malaysia, China, and Brazil. Only one study covered multiple countries with varying incomes, including lower-middle-income nations (Lower MICs) like India. The ICERs values in various screening scenarios for early-stage BC, HER2 negative BC patients, and healthy women with clinical or family history criteria were ranging from USD 2214/QALY to USD 36,342/QALY. Multigene testing for all breast cancer patients with cascade testing was at USD 7729/QALY compared to BRCA alone. Most studies adhered to the CHEERS 2022 criteria, signifying high methodological quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Germline testing could be considered as cost-effective compared to no testing in Upper MICs (e.g., Malaysia, China, Brazil) but not in Lower MICs (e.g., India) based on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold set by each respective study. Limitations prevent a definite conclusion about cost-effectiveness across LMICs. More high-quality studies are crucial for informed decision-making and improved healthcare practices in these regions.

Genetic Testing Enhances the Precision Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer

The contemporary comprehension of breast cancer has progressed to the molecular level. As a heterogeneous malignancy, conventional pathological diagnosis and histological classification could no longer meet the needs of precisely managing breast cancer. Genetic testing based on gene expression profiles and gene mutations has emerged and substantially contributed to the precise diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Multigene assays (MGAs) are explored for early-stage breast cancer patients, aiding the selection of adjuvant therapy and predicting prognosis. For metastatic breast cancer patients, testing specific genes indicates potentially effective antitumor agents. In this review, genetic testing in early-stage and metastatic breast cancer is summarized, as well as the advantages and challenges of genetic testing in breast cancer.

Economic evaluations of predictive genetic testing: A scoping review

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.

Breast Cancer Screening Should Embrace Precision Medicine: Evidence by Reviewing Economic Evaluations in China

The cost-effectiveness of conventional population-based breast cancer screening strategies (e.g. mammography) has been found controversial, while evidence shows that genetic testing for early detection of pathogenic variants is cost-effective. We aimed to review the economic evaluations of breast cancer screening in China to provide an information summary for future research on this topic. We searched the literature to identify the economic evaluations that examined breast cancer screening and testing in China, supplemented by hand-searching the reference lists of the included studies. We finally included five studies satisfying our inclusion criteria. Four articles examined mammography while the rest investigated multigene testing. The existing breast cancer screening programmes were found to be cost-effective among urban Chinese women, but one study concluded that they might cause harm to women in rural areas. Contextual factors, such as data absence, urban-rural disparity, willingness-to-pay threshold, and model design, imposed barriers to cost-effectiveness analysis. Multigene testing was found to be cost-effective and has a promising population impact among all women with breast cancer in China. Future research should investigate the cost-effectiveness of screening and identifying breast cancer through precision medicine technologies, including genetic testing, genome sequencing, cascade testing, and the return of secondary findings.

Risk-Reducing Breast and Gynecological Surgery for BRCA Mutation Carriers: A Narrative Review

This narrative review aims to clarify the role of breast and gynecological risk-reduction surgery in BRCA mutation carriers. We examine the indications, contraindications, complications, technical aspects, timing, economic impact, ethical issues, and prognostic benefits of the most common prophylactic surgical options from the perspectives of a breast surgeon and a gynecologist. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE databases. The databases were explored from their inceptions to August 2022. Three independent reviewers screened the items and selected those most relevant to this review's scope. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are significantly more likely to develop breast, ovarian, and serous endometrial cancer. Because of the Angelina effect, there has been a significant increase in bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) since 2013. BRRM and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) significantly reduce the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. RRSO has significant side effects, including an impact on fertility and early menopause (i.e., vasomotor symptoms, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, and sexual dysfunction). Hormonal therapy can help with these symptoms. Because of the lower risk of developing breast cancer in the residual mammary gland tissue after BRRM, estrogen-only treatments have an advantage over an estrogen/progesterone combined treatment. Risk-reducing hysterectomy allows for estrogen-only treatments and lowers the risk of endometrial cancer. Although prophylactic surgery reduces the cancer risk, it has disadvantages associated with early menopause. A multidisciplinary team must carefully inform the woman who chooses this path of the broad spectrum of implications, from cancer risk reduction to hormonal therapies.

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.

What happens in the long term: Uptake of cancer surveillance and prevention strategies among at-risk relatives with pathogenic variants detected via cascade testing

BACKGROUND

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes offers affected relatives the opportunity to pursue cancer screening and risk-reducing surgery and thus reduces morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to measure the long-term utilization of targeted cancer prevention and quality of life among at-risk relatives offered clinician-facilitated cascade genetic testing.

METHODS

In a pilot study, at-risk relatives of patients with a hereditary cancer syndrome were contacted directly by the clinical team and offered telephone genetic counseling and genetic testing via an at-home, mailed saliva kit. Two-year follow-up results evaluating the use of targeted cancer prevention strategies and the quality of life for enrolled relatives were reported. Quality-of-life was measured with validated surveys, and scores were compared to the time of initial contact by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Ninety-five at-risk relatives were enrolled in the initial pilot study, and 72 (76%) participated in the 2-year follow-up; 57 of these (79%) had completed genetic testing. Twenty-five of those 57 relatives (44%) were found to harbor an inherited pathogenic variant. Guideline-based cancer surveillance was recommended to 18 relatives; 13 (72%) completed at least one recommended screening, and six (33%) completed all recommended screenings. Risk-reducing surgery was recommended to 10 relatives; four (40%) completed a total of eight procedures. Quality-of-life surveys demonstrated low levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-year follow-up of the original pilot study revealed that clinician-facilitated cascade testing resulted in genetically targeted cancer screening and prevention with preserved quality of life. These results, to be confirmed by larger randomized controlled trials, suggest that medical systems should consider supporting clinician-facilitated cascade testing programs.

A digital pathway for genetic testing in UK NHS patients with cancer: BRCA-DIRECT randomised study internal pilot

BACKGROUND

Germline genetic testing affords multiple opportunities for women with breast cancer, however, current UK NHS models for delivery of germline genetic testing are clinician-intensive and only a minority of breast cancer cases access testing.

METHODS

We designed a rapid, digital pathway, supported by a genetics specialist hotline, for delivery of germline testing of BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 (BRCA-testing), integrated into routine UK NHS breast cancer care. We piloted the pathway, as part of the larger BRCA-DIRECT study, in 130 unselected patients with breast cancer and gathered preliminary data from a randomised comparison of delivery of pretest information digitally (fully digital pathway) or via telephone consultation with a genetics professional (partially digital pathway).

RESULTS

Uptake of genetic testing was 98.4%, with good satisfaction reported for both the fully and partially digital pathways. Similar outcomes were observed in both arms regarding patient knowledge score and anxiety, with <5% of patients contacting the genetics specialist hotline. All progression criteria established for continuation of the study were met.

CONCLUSION

Pilot data indicate preliminary demonstration of feasibility and acceptability of a fully digital pathway for BRCA-testing and support proceeding to a full powered study for evaluation of non-inferiority of the fully digital pathway, detailed quantitative assessment of outcomes and operational economic analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN87845055.

Optimizing treatment selection and sequencing decisions for first-line maintenance therapy of newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer – International considerations amongst upper middle- and high-income countries (UMIC and HIC)

•

Early BRCA testing is crucial and enables personalized treatment approach.

•

BRCA mutation analysis is essential and should be utilized at the time of diagnosis.

•

Single-agent PARP inhibitors seem most beneficial in BRCA mutations or HRD.

•

Evidence suggests bevacizumab or niraparib-alone benefits for HRD-negative patients.

•

HRD-tailored treatment should be explored further.

The incidence and mortality rates of ovarian cancer are increasing globally. Ovarian cancer is diagnosed at an advanced stage in 80% of women. After standard, platinum-based, front-line chemotherapy, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents are successfully employed as maintenance strategies for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients. Landmark clinical studies, including SOLO-1, PAOLA-1, PRIMA, and VELIA, have provided crucial insights on optimizing first-line maintenance treatment using PARP inhibitors. A group of ovarian cancer experts, primarily from low- and middle-income countries, met in September 2019 to discuss new developments for the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer and its implications.

Key implications of the evolving clinical data included: (1) olaparib or niraparib maintenance therapy appears to be the preferred choice for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations; hence, BRCA testing is beneficial in identifying these patients; (2) niraparib monotherapy and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab have demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive patients; (3) bevacizumab, niraparib alone, or observation can be an alternative for HRD-negative patients; (4) further data is warranted to explore the role of PARP inhibitors in treating HRD-negative, ovarian cancer patients to confirm findings of the exploratory analysis of PRIMA; (5) PARP inhibitors may be beneficial for stage IV ovarian cancer patients with inoperable disease and patients with prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and (6) there is an urgent need to increase awareness in both clinicians and patients on BRCA and HRD testing for optimizing treatment decision-making and improving clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients. In clinical medicine, the limited availability of family history (FH) information and the complexity of FH criteria has hampered the implementation of BRCA testing. Moreover, many cancer patients with BRCA mutations are not tested because they do not meet the criteria for FH. Consequently, BRCA testing in many high income countries, including the US and Australia, is underused and used inappropriately, which has resulted in the loss of valuable opportunities for better cancer management and cancer prevention.

Cost-Effectiveness of Genetic Testing for All Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in China

Simple Summary

Unselected multigene testing at breast cancer (BC) diagnosis has been reported to be cost-effective compared with family history (FH)/clinical-criteria-based testing in high-income countries such as the US and UK. Chinese patients are younger than Caucasian women at diagnosis, tending to have a higher gene mutation prevalence, and the family size and number of female relatives are smaller due to the one-child policy (which has been changed) in China. Therefore, offering genetic testing for BC patients could potentially prevent more cancer cases and deaths in China. However, the health economic evidence for multigene testing at BC diagnosis in China is lacking. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three genetic testing strategies among BC patients using a microsimulation model at the individual level in China. We found that offering unselected multigene testing to all BC patients in China is highly cost-effective compared with FH/clinical-criteria-based testing or no testing from both the societal and payer perspectives.

Abstract

Unselected multigene testing for all women with breast cancer (BC) identifies more cancer susceptibility gene (CSG) carriers who can benefit from precision prevention compared with family history (FH)/clinical-criteria-based guidelines. Very little CSG testing is undertaken in middle-income countries such as China, and its cost-effectiveness remains unaddressed. We aimed to estimate cost-effectiveness and population impact of multigene testing for all Chinese BC patients. Data from 8085 unselected BC patients recruited to a Peking University Cancer Hospital study were used for microsimulation modeling, comparing three strategies in the Chinese setting: all BC women undergo BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 genetic testing, only BC women fulfilling FH/clinical criteria undergo BRCA testing, and no genetic testing. Prophylactic mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy would be adopted where appropriate. Societal and payer perspectives with a lifetime horizon along with sensitivity analyses were presented. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained is compared to the USD 10,260/QALY (one-times GDP per capita) willingness-to-pay threshold. BC incidence, ovarian cancer (OC) incidence, and related deaths were also estimated. FH/clinical-criteria-based BRCA testing was ruled out on the principle of extensive dominance. Compared with no genetic testing, multigene testing for all BC patients had an ICER = USD 4506/QALY (societal perspective) and USD 7266/QALY (payer perspective), well below our threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed unselected multigene testing remained cost-effective for 94.2%/86.6% of simulations from the societal and payer perspectives. One year’s unselected multigene testing could prevent 7868 BC/OC cases and 5164 BC/OC deaths in China. Therefore, unselected multigene testing is extremely cost-effective and should be offered to all Chinese women with BC.

Uptake Rates of Risk-Reducing Surgeries for Women at Increased Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Applied to Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Scoping Systematic Review

Simple Summary

For women who have tested positive for BRCA mutations, the decision to make use of preventive surgical options, such as risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), depends on the women’s personal preferences and the cultural/social context. Among others, the cost-effectiveness of RRM and RRSO can be affected by the uptake rate of these preventive surgical options. Uptake rates of surgery should be given more attention in the conceptualization of health economic modeling studies for RRM and RRSO. Prospective multicenter studies are recommended to reflect regional and national variations in women’s preferences for preventive surgery.

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness of genetic screen-and-treat strategies for women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer often depends on the women’s willingness to make use of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). To explore the uptake rates of RRM and RRSO applied in health economic modeling studies and the impact of uptake rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), we conducted a scoping literature review. In addition, using our own model, we conducted a value of information (VOI) analysis. Among the 19 models included in the review, the uptake rates of RRM ranged from 6% to 47% (RRSO: 10% to 88%). Fifty-seven percent of the models applied retrospective data obtained from registries, hospital records, or questionnaires. According to the models’ deterministic sensitivity analyses, there is a clear trend that a lower uptake rate increased the ICER and vice versa. Our VOI analysis showed high decision uncertainty associated with the uptake rates. In the future, uptake rates should be given more attention in the conceptualization of health economic modeling studies. Prospective studies are recommended to reflect regional and national variations in women’s preferences for preventive surgery.

Data on Utility in Cost-Utility Analyses of Genetic Screen-and-Treat Strategies for Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Simple Summary

The prevention of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer involves genetic counselling and several highly preference-sensitive alternatives (i.e., risk-reducing surgeries). In health economics models, data on health preferences applied (i.e., utility values) are heterogeneous. In this methodological analysis, we compared the application of utility values among cost–utility models of targeted genetic testing for the prevention of breast and ovarian cancer. While varying utilities on risk-reducing surgeries and cancer states did not impact the cost–utility ratio, utility losses/gains due to a positive/negative test may strongly affect the cost–utility ratio and should be considered mandatory in future models. Because women’s health preferences may have changed as a result of improved oncologic care and genetic counselling, studies for ascertaining women’s health preferences should be updated.

Abstract

Genetic screen-and-treat strategies for the risk-reduction of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) are often evaluated by cost–utility analyses (CUAs). This analysis compares data on health preferences (i.e., utility values) in CUAs of targeted genetic testing for BC and OC. Based on utilities applied in fourteen CUAs, data on utility including related assumptions were extracted for the health states: (i) genetic test, (ii) risk-reducing surgeries, (iii) BC/OC and (iv) post cancer. In addition, information about the sources of utility and the impact on the cost-effectiveness was extracted. Utility for CUAs relied on heterogeneous data and assumptions for all health states. The utility values ranged from 0.68 to 0.97 for risk-reducing surgeries, 0.6 to 0.85 for BC and 0.5 to 0.82 for OC. In two out of nine studies, considering the impact of the test result strongly affected the cost–effectiveness ratio. While in general utilities seem not to affect the cost–utility ratio, in future modeling studies the impact of a positive/negative test on utility should be considered mandatory. Women’s health preferences, which may have changed as a result of improved oncologic care and genetic counselling, should be re-evaluated.