Modeling companion diagnostics in economic evaluations of targeted oncology therapies: Systematic review and methodological checklist

Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 235-254

  Doble, Brett ^a   Tan, Marcus ^a,b   Harris, Anthony ^a   Lorgelly, Paula ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

companion diagnostics; cost effectiveness analysis; economic evaluation; genomic testing; oncology; precision medicine

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CETUXIMAB; CRIZOTINIB; ERLOTINIB; TRASTUZUMAB; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

CHECKLIST; COMPANION DIAGNOSTIC; COST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DRUG SYNTHESIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERNET; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; NEOPLASMS; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84921361195     PISSN: 14737159     EISSN: 17448352     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737159.2014.929499     Document Type: Review

References (80)

1. Schilsky RL. Personalized medicine in oncology: the future is now. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010;9(5):363-6
2. Ong FS, Das K, Wang J, et al. Personalized medicine and pharmacogenetic biomarkers: progress in molecular oncology testing. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2012;12(6):593-602
3. Spackman E, Rice S, Norman G, et al. Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer : a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 2013;31(3):185-94
4. Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, et al. Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: uses, roles, and validity. Value Health 2001;4(5):348-61
5. Shih YC, Halpern MT. Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: how, why, and what does it mean?. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58(4): 231-44
6. Sanghera S, Orlando R, Roberts T. Economic evaluations and diagnostic testing: an illustrative case study approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013;29(1): 53-60
7. Ferrusi IL, Marshall DA, Kulin NA, et al. Looking back at 10 years of trastuzumab therapy: what is the role of HER2 testing?. A systematic review of health economic analyses. Pers Med 2009;6(2):193-215
8. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 2009;361(10):947-57
9. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993;39(4): 561-77
10. Flowers CR, Veenstra D. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in the era of pharmacogenomics. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22(8):481-93
11. Annemans L, Redekop K, Payne K. Current methodological issues in the economic assessment of personalized medicine. Value Health 2013;16(6 Suppl):S20-6
12. Companion diagnostic devices: in vitro and imaging tools. Silver Spring, MD: United States Food and Drug Administration, 2014. Available from: www.fda.gov/.MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedical Procedures/InVitroDiagnostics/ucm301431. htm [Last accessed 17 March 2014]
13. Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care 2003;41(1):32-44
14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7): e1000097
15. Health Technology Assessment. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2011. Available from: www.cadth.ca/en/products/health- Technology-Assessment?q [Last accessed 27 February 2014]
16. Rapid Response. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2014. Available from: www.cadth. ca/en/products/rapid-response [Last accessed 27 February 2014]
17. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Public Summary Documents. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government, Department of Health, 2013. Available from: www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/.elements/pbac-meetings/psd [Last accessed 27 February 2014]
18. Medical Services Advisory Committee Completed Assessments and Reviews. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government, Department of Health, 2013. Available from: www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/.publishing.nsf/Content/completedassessments [Last accessed 27 February 2014]
19. Technology Assessments. Rockville, MD: agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014. Available from: www.ahrq.gov/.research/findings/ta/index.html [Last accessed 27 February 2014]
20. Published technology appraisals. London, UK: national Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2013. Available from: http://.guidance.nice.org.uk/TA/Published [Last accessed 27 February 2014]
21. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37(5):360-3
22. Shemilt I, Thomas J, Morciano M. A web-based tool for adjusting costs to a specific target currency and price year. Evid Policy 2010;6(1):51-9
23. Wong WB, Carlson JJ, Thariani R, Veenstra DL. Cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics: a critical and systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28(11): 1001-13
24. Djalalov S, Musa Z, Mendelson M, et al. A review of economic evaluations of genetic testing services and interventions (2004-2009). Genet Med 2011;13(2):89-94
25. Yang M, Patel DS, Tufail W, Issa AM. The quality of economic studies of cancer pharmacogenomics: a quantitative appraisal of the evidence. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013;13(5):597-611
26. Blank PR, Moch H, Szucs TD, Schwenkglenks M. KRAS and BRAF mutation analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from a Swiss perspective. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17(19):6338-46
27. Vijayaraghavan A, Efrusy MB, Goke B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of KRAS testing in metastatic colorectal cancer patients in the United States and Germany. Int J Cancer 2012;131(2):438-45
28. Atherly AJ, Camidge DR. The cost-effectiveness of screening lung cancer patients for targeted drug sensitivity markers. Br J Cancer 2012;106(6):1100-29
29. Lee JA, Bubendorf L, Stahel R, Peters P. Testing for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement to target crizotinib therapy: oncolgy, pathology and health economic perspectives. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2013;13(5):625-36
30. Djalalov S, Beca J, Hoch JS, et al. Cost effectiveness of EML4-ALK fusion testing and first-line crizotinib treatment for patients with advanced ALK-Positive non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014;32(10):1012-19
31. Lieberthal RD, Dudash K, Axelrod R, Goldfarb NI. An economic model to value companion diagnostics in non-small-cell lung cancer. Pers Med 2013;10(2):139-47
32. Elkin EB, Weinstein MC, Winer EP, et al. HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(5):854-63
33. Lidgren M, Jonsson B, Rehnberg C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of HER2 testing and 1-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2008;19(3): 487-95
34. Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jonsson B, Rehnberg C. Cost-effectiveness of HER2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Acta Oncol 2008; 47(6):1018-28
35. Blank PR, Schwenkglenks M, Moch H, Szucs TD. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression in early breast cancer patients: a Swiss cost-effectiveness analysis of different predictive assay strategies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;124(2):497-507
36. Lee JA, Shaheen M, Walke T, Daly M. Clinical and health economic outcomes of alternative HER2 testing strategies for guiding adjuvant trastuzumab therapy. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2011;11(3):325-41
37. Garrison LP Jr, Lalla D, Brammer M, et al. Assessing the potential cost-effectiveness of retesting IHC0, IHC1+, or FISH-negative early stage breast cancer patients for HER2 status. Cancer 2013;119(17):3113-22
38. Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2008;8(2):165-78
39. Meads C, Round J, Tubeuf S, et al. Cetuximab for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A Single Technology Appraisal. West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Collaboration; 2008
40. Medical Advisory Secretariat. KRAS testing for anti-EGFR therapy in advanced colorectal cancer: an evidence-based and economic analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2010;10(25):1-49
41. Shiroiwa T, Motoo Y, Tsutani K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of KRAS testing and cetuximab as last-line therapy for colorectal cancer. Mol Diagn Ther 2010; 14(6):375-84
42. Behl AS, Goddard KAB, Flottemesch TJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104(23):1785-95
43. Hoyle M, Peters J, Crathorne L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab for third and further lines of treatment for KRAS wild-Type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Value Health 2013;16(2):288-96
44. Barone C, Pinto C, Normanno N, et al. KRAS early testing: consensus initiative and cost-effectiveness evaluation for metastatic colorectal patients in an Italian setting. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e85897
45. Duarte A, Burch J, Smith A, et al. Crizotinib for the treatment of previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer associated with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion gene: a single technology appraisal. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and Centre for Health Economics (CHE); 2013
46. Carlson JJ, Garrison LP, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL. The potential clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenomic approaches to EGFR-Tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Value Health 2009;12(1):20-7
47. Borget I, Cadranel J, Pignon JP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of three strategies for second-line erlotinib initiation in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: the ERMETIC study part 3. Eur Respir J 2012;39(1):172-9
48. Handorf EA, McElligott S, Vachani A, et al. Cost effectiveness of personalized therapy for first-line treatment of stage IV and recurrent incurable adenocarcinoma of the lung. J Oncol Pract 2012;8(5):267-74
49. Norum J, Risberg T, Olsen JA. A monoclonal antibody against HER-2 (trastuzumab) for metastatic breast cancer: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Oncol 2005;16(6):909-14
50. Neyt MJ, Albrecht JA, Clarysse B, Cocquyt VF. Cost-effectiveness of Herceptin: a standard cost model for breast-cancer treatment in a Belgian university hospital. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21(1):132-7
51. Neyt M, Albrecht J, Cocquyt V. An economic evaluation of Herceptin((R)) in adjuvant setting: the Breast Cancer International Research Group 006 trial. Ann Oncol 2006;17(3):381-90
52. Garrison LP, Lubeck D, Lalla D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting for treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer 2007;110:489-98
53. Dedes KJ, Szucs TD, Imesch P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: a model-based analysis of the HERA and FinHer trial. Ann Oncol 2007;18(9):1493-9
54. Neyt M, Huybrechts M, Hulstaert F, et al. Trastuzumab in early stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Belgium. Health Policy 2008;87(2):146-59
55. Skedgel C, Rayson D, Younis T. The cost-utility of sequential adjuvant trastuzumab in women with Her2/Neupositive breast cancer: an analysis based on updated results from the HERA trial. Value Health 2009;12(5):641-8
56. Van Vlaenderen I, Canon JL, Cocquyt V, et al. Trastuzumab treatment of early stage breast cancer is cost-effective from the perspective of the Belgian Health Care Authorities. Acta Clin Belg 2009;64(2): 100-12
57. Hoyle M, Crathorne L, Peters J, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy), bevacizumab (combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy (review of technology appraisal No.150 and part review of technology appraisal No. 118): a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(14):1-237
58. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine using SAS Software. Rochester, MN: Mandrekar JN, Mandrekar SJ, 2005. Available from: www2.sas.com/proceedings/.sugi30/211-30.pdf [Last accessed 12 May 2014]
59. Phelps CE, Mushlin AI. Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med Decis Making 1988; 8(4):279-89
60. Laking G, Lord J, Fischer A. The economics of diagnosis. Health Econ 2006; 15(10):1109-20
61. Vegter S, Boersma C, Rozenbaum M, et al. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programmes: a systematic review on content and adherence to guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26(7):569-87
62. Vegter S, Jansen E, Postma MJ, Boersma C. Economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programs: update of the literature. Drug Dev Res 2010;71: 492-501
63. Beaulieu M, de Denus S, Lachaine J. Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic studies of pharmacogenomic tests. Pharmacogenomics 2010;11(11):1573-90
64. Phillips KA, Van Bebber SL. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of pharmacogenomic interventions. Pharmacogenomics 2004;5(8):1139-49
65. Higashi MK, Veenstra DL. Managed care in the genomics era: assessing the cost effectiveness of genetic tests. Am J Manag Care 2003;9(7):493-500
66. Frank M, Mittendorf T. Influence of Pharmacogenomic Profiling Prior to Pharmaceutical Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer on Cost Effectiveness A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics 2013;31(3):215-28
67. Shim HS, Lee DH, Park EJ, Kim SH. Histopathologic Characteristics of Lung Adenocarcinomas With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/.European Respiratory Society Lung Adenocarcinoma Classification. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2011;135(10):1329-34
68. Chan M, Lee CW, Wu M. Integrating next-generation sequencing into clinical cancer diagnostics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2013;13(7):647-50
69. Garau M, Towse A, Garrison L, et al. Can and should value-based pricing be applied to molecular diagnostics?. Pers Med 2013; 10(1):61-72
70. Doble B, Harris A, Thomas DM, et al. Multiomics medicine in oncology: assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and future research priorities for the molecularly unique individual. Pharmacogenomics 2013; 14(12):1405-17
71. Buchanan J, Wordsworth S, Schuh A. Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies. Pharmacogenomics 2013;14(15):1833-47
72. Blair ED, Stratton EK, Kaufmann M. The economic value of companion diagnostics and stratified medicines. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2012;12(8):791-4
73. Novielli N, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests in combination: is it important to allow for performance dependency?. Value Health 2013;16(4): 536-41
74. Longo R, Baxter P, Hall P, et al. Methods for Identifying the Cost-effective Case Definition Cut-Off for Sequential Monitoring Tests: an Extension of Phelps and Mushlin. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32(4):327-34
75. Baird RD, Caldas C. Genetic heterogeneity in breast cancer: the road to personalized medicine?. BMC Med 2013;11:151
76. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med 2012;366(10): 883-92
77. Simonds NI, Khoury MJ, Schully SD, et al. Comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics and precision medicine: current landscape and future prospects. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105(13):929-36
78. Veenstra DL, Roth JA, Garrison LP Jr, et al. A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice. Genet Med 2010;12(11):686-93
79. Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 2011;13(6):499-504
80. Hornberger J. Assigning value to medical algorithms: implications for personalized medicine. Pers Med 2013; 10(6):577-88