Economic implications of 21-gene breast cancer risk assay from the perspective of an Israeli-managed health-care organization

Value in Health

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 381-387

  Klang, Shmuel H ^a   Hammerman, Ariel ^a   Liebermann, Nicky ^a   Efrat, Noa ^b   Doberne, Julie ^c   Hornberger, John ^c,d  

^a CLALIT HEALTH SERVICES   (Israel)

^b KAPLAN MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^c Cedar Associates LLC   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; costs; early stage breast cancer; economics; gene assay; molecular classifier; Oncotype DX

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SURVIVAL; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; ISRAEL; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR GENE; ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENETIC SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RECURRENT DISEASE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVIVAL; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENETIC TESTING; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; ISRAEL; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RECURRENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 77954257827     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00724.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Freedman LS, Edwards BK, Ries LAG, Young JL (eds). Cancer Incidence in Four Member Countries (Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, and Jordan) of the Middle East Cancer Consortium (MECC) Compared with US SEER. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, 2006. NIH Pub. No. 06-5873.
2. Mathers C, Boerna T, Ma Fat D, et al. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update.
3. Fisher B, Brown AM, Dimitrov NV, et al. Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifen-nonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-15. J Clin Oncol 1990 8 : 1483 1496.
4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. Breast Cancer, V.1.2009. 2008. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/f- guidelines.asp [Accessed June 18, 2009
5. Vacek PM, Geller BM, Weaver DL, Foster RS, Jr. Increased mammography use and its impact on earlier breast cancer detection in Vermont, 1975-1999. Cancer 2002 94 : 2160 2168.
6. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997 89 : 1673 1682.
7. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004 351 : 2817 2826.
8. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006 24 : 3726 3734.
9. Asad J, Jacobson A, Estabrook A, et al. Does Oncotype DX Recurrence Score affect the management of patients with early stage breast cancer? Am J Surg 2008 196 : 527 529.
10. Oratz R, Paul D, Cohn A, Sedlacek S. Impact of a commercial reference laboratory test recurrence score on decision making in early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 2007 3 : 182 186.
11. Mumby P, Lo S, Norton J, et al. Prospective multi-center study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on patient satisfaction, anxiety and decisional conflict for adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection. #1092. In: 30th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 13, 2007; San Antonio, TX.
12. Thanasoulis T, Brown A, Frazier T. The role of Oncotype DX assay on appropriate treatment for estrogen positive, lymph node negative invasive breast cancer. American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meeting; 2008; New York, NY; 2008.
13. Erb C, Fox K, Patel M, et al. Evaluation of practice patterns in the treatment of node-negative, hormone-receptor positive breast cancer patients with the use of the Oncotype DX assay at the University of Pennsylvania. #3082. In: 30th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 14, 2007; San Antonio, TX.
14. Ben-Baruch N, Hammerman A, Klang S, Liebermann N. A prospective study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on treatment decisions in N-, ER+ early stage breast cancer patients. #11008. In: ASCO Annual Meeting, June 20, 2007; Chicago, IL.
15. Hornberger J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH. Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 2005 11 : 313 324.
16. Lyman G, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, Hornberger J. Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer 2007 109 : 1011 1018.
17. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer institute. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999-2005 Incidence and Mortality Web-Based Report.
18. Lipscomb J, Weinstein M, Torrance G. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
19. Brennan V, Wolowacz S. A systematic review of breast cancer utility weights. #PCN77. ISPOR 13th Annual International Meeting 2008, May 3-7, 2009, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
20. Simes R, Coates AS. Patient preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: how much benefit is needed? J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001 30 : 146 152.
21. Lindley C, Vasa S, Sawyer WT, et al. Quality of life and preferences for treatment following systemic adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998 16 : 1380 1387.
22. Ravdin P, Siminoff IA, Harvey JA. Survey of breast cancer patients concerning their knowledge and expectations of adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 1998 16 : 515 521.
23. Zimmermann C, Baldo C, Molino A. Framing of outcome and probability of recurrence: Breast cancer patients' choice of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in hypothetical patient scenarios. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000 60 : 9 14.
24. Braithwaite RS, Roberts MS, Justice AC. Incorporating quality of evidence into decision analytic modeling. Ann Intern Med 2007 146 : 133 141.
25. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004 328 : 1490.
26. American Joint. Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (6th ed.).
27. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007 25 : 5287 5312. (Pubitemid 350232263)
28. Feachem RG. Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Bull World Health Organ 2002 80 : 87.
29. Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H, et al. Economic evaluation of 21-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008 112 : 175 187.
30. Marchionni L, Wilson R, Marinopoulos S, et al. Impact of Gene Expression Profiling Tests on Breast Cancer Outcomes. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 160. (Prepared by The Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under contract No. 290-02-0018). AHRQ Publication No. 08-E002.