Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Testing across Multiple Countries and Health Systems - PubMed

Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Testing across Multiple Countries and Health Systems - PubMed

Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Testing across Multiple Countries and Health Systems

Ranjit Manchanda 1 2 3, Li Sun 1 4, Shreeya Patel 1, Olivia Evans 1 2, Janneke Wilschut 5, Ana Carolina De Freitas Lopes 6, Faiza Gaba 1 2, Adam Brentnall 7, Stephen Duffy 7, Bin Cui 8, Patricia Coelho De Soarez 6, Zakir Husain 9 10, John Hopper 11, Zia Sadique 4, Asima Mukhopadhyay 12 13, Li Yang 8, Johannes Berkhof 5, Rosa Legood 4

Affiliations 

• PMID: 32708835
 
• DOI: 10.3390/cancers12071929

Free article

Abstract

Clinical criteria/Family history-based BRCA testing misses a large proportion of BRCA carriers who can benefit from screening/prevention. We estimate the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing in general population women across different countries/health systems. A Markov model comparing the lifetime costs and effects of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing all general population women ≥30 years compared with clinical criteria/FH-based testing. Separate analyses are undertaken for the UK/USA/Netherlands (high-income countries/HIC), China/Brazil (upper-middle income countries/UMIC) and India (low-middle income countries/LMIC) using both health system/payer and societal perspectives. BRCA carriers undergo appropriate screening/prevention interventions to reduce breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Outcomes include OC, BC, and additional heart disease deaths and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses evaluate model uncertainty. For the base case, from a societal perspective, we found that population-based BRCA testing is cost-saving in HIC (UK-ICER = $-5639/QALY; USA-ICER = $-4018/QALY; Netherlands-ICER = $-11,433/QALY), and it appears cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $18,066/QALY; Brazil-ICER = $13,579/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $23,031/QALY). From a payer perspective, population-based BRCA testing is highly cost-effective in HIC (UK-ICER = $21,191/QALY, USA-ICER = $16,552/QALY, Netherlands-ICER = $25,215/QALY), and it is cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $23,485/QALY, Brazil-ICER = $20,995/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $32,217/QALY). BRCA testing costs below $172/test (ICER = $19,685/QALY), which makes it cost-effective (from a societal perspective) for LMIC/India. Population-based BRCA testing can prevent an additional 2319 to 2666 BC and 327 to 449 OC cases per million women than the current clinical strategy. Findings suggest that population-based BRCA testing for countries evaluated is extremely cost-effective across HIC/UMIC health systems, is cost-saving for HIC health systems from a societal perspective, and can prevent tens of thousands more BC/OC cases.

Keywords: BRCA; breast cancer; cancer prevention; cost-effectiveness; ovarian cancer; population testing.

Similar articles

• A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Multigene Testing for All Patients With Breast Cancer.

  Sun L, Brentnall A, Patel S, Buist DSM, Bowles EJA, Evans DGR, Eccles D, Hopper J, Li S, Southey M, Duffy S, Cuzick J, Dos Santos Silva I, Miners A, Sadique Z, Yang L, Legood R, Manchanda R.JAMA Oncol. 2019 Oct 3;5(12):1718-30. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3323. Online ahead of print.PMID: 31580391 Free PMC article.
• Cost-effectiveness of Population-Based BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, PALB2 Mutation Testing in Unselected General Population Women.

  Manchanda R, Patel S, Gordeev VS, Antoniou AC, Smith S, Lee A, Hopper JL, MacInnis RJ, Turnbull C, Ramus SJ, Gayther SA, Pharoah PDP, Menon U, Jacobs I, Legood R.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Jul 1;110(7):714-725. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx265.PMID: 29361001
• Cost-effectiveness of population screening for BRCA mutations in Ashkenazi jewish women compared with family history-based testing.

  Manchanda R, Legood R, Burnell M, McGuire A, Raikou M, Loggenberg K, Wardle J, Sanderson S, Gessler S, Side L, Balogun N, Desai R, Kumar A, Dorkins H, Wallis Y, Chapman C, Taylor R, Jacobs C, Tomlinson I, Beller U, Menon U, Jacobs I.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Nov 30;107(1):380. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju380. Print 2015 Jan.PMID: 25435542 Free PMC article.
• Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

  Main C, Bojke L, Griffin S, Norman G, Barbieri M, Mather L, Stark D, Palmer S, Riemsma R.Health Technol Assess. 2006 Mar;10(9):1-132. iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta10090.PMID: 16545208 Review.
• Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip for the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

  Sharma P, Boyers D, Boachie C, Stewart F, Miedzybrodzka Z, Simpson W, Kilonzo M, McNamee P, Mowatt G.Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(17):1-266. doi: 10.3310/hta16170.PMID: 22469073 Free PMC article. Review.