Incorporating Tumor Characteristics to Maximize 21-Gene Assay Utility: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

View More View Less
  • a Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale University School of Public Health; Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Cancer Center and Yale University School of Medicine; and Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Therapeutic Radiology, and Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Restricted access

Background: Literature suggests that Oncotype DX (ODX) is cost-effective. These studies, however, tend to ignore clinical characteristics and have not incorporated population-based data regarding the distribution of ODX results across different clinical risk groups. Accordingly, this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ODX across strata of clinical risk groups using population-based ODX data. Methods: We created state-transition models to calculate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained over the lifetime for women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, HER2-negative, lymph node–negative breast cancer from a US payer perspective. Using the Connecticut Tumor Registry, we classified the 2,245 patients diagnosed in 2011 through 2013 into 3 clinical risk groups according to the PREDICT model, a risk calculator developed by the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. Within each risk group, we then determined the recurrence score (RS) distributions (<18, 18–30, and ≥31). Other input parameters were derived from the literature. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Approximately 82.5%, 11.9%, and 5.6% of our sample were in the PREDICT low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. When combining these 3 groups, ODX had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $62,200 per QALY for patients aged 60 years. The ICERs, however, differed across clinical risk groups, ranging from $124,600 per QALY in the low-risk group, to $28,700 per QALY in the intermediate-risk group, to $15,700 per QALY in the high-risk group. Results were sensitive to patient age: the ICER for patients aged 45 to 75 years ranged from $77,100 to $344,600 per QALY in the PREDICT low-risk group, and was lower than $100,000 per QALY in the intermediate- and high-risk groups. Conclusions: ODX is not cost-effective for women with clinical low-risk breast cancer, which constitutes most patients with ER-positive disease.

Correspondence: Shi-Yi Wang, MD, PhD, Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, 60 College Street, P.O. Box 208034, New Haven, CT 06520. Email: shiyi.wang@yale.edu

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplemental Data (PDF 460 KB)
  • 1.

    Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ et al. . Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:980991.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Wishart GC, Azzato EM, Greenberg DC et al. . PREDICT: a new UK prognostic model that predicts survival following surgery for invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12:R1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    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;25:52875312.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    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;24:37263734.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Orucevic A, Heidel RE, Bell JL. Utilization and impact of 21-gene recurrence score assay for breast cancer in clinical practice across the United States: lessons learned from the 2010 to 2012 National Cancer Data Base analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016;157:427435.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Hornberger J, Alvarado MD, Rebecca C et al. . Clinical validity/utility, change in practice patterns, and economic implications of risk stratifiers to predict outcomes for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:10681079.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Rutter CE, Yao X, Mancini BR et al. . Influence of a 21-gene recurrence score assay on chemotherapy delivery in breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2016;16:5962.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Hornberher 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;11:313324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, Hornberher 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;109:10111018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Davidson JA, Cromwell I, Ellard SL et al. . A prospective clinical utility and pharmacoeconomic study of the impact of the 21-gene Recurrence Score® assay in oestrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:24692475.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Holt S, Bettelli G, Humphreys I et al. . A decision impact, decision conflict and economic assessment of routine Oncotype DX testing of 146 women with node-negative or pNImi, ER-positive breast cancer in the U.K. Br J Cancer 2013;108:22502258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Reed SD, Dinan MA, Schulman KA, Lyman GH. Cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay in the context of multifactorial decision making to guide chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. Genet Med 2013;15:203211.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Paulden M, Franek J, Pham B et al. . Cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer. Value Health 2013;16:729739.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Wang SY, Dang W, Richman I et al. . Cost-effectiveness analyses of the 21-gene assay in breast cancer: systematic review and critical appraisal. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:16191627.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Kim HS, Umbricht CB, Illei PB et al. . Optimizing the use of gene expression profiling in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:43904397.

  • 16.

    Orucevic A, Bell JL, McNabb AP, Heidel RE. Oncotype DX breast cancer recurrence score can be predicted with a novel nomogram using clinicopathologic data. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017;163:5161.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R et al. . NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer. Version 1.2016. Accessed February 15, 2017. To view the most recent version of these guidelines, visit NCCN.org.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Ward S, Scope A, Rafia R et al. . Gene expression profiling and expanded immunohistochemistry tests to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer management: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:1302.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Chandler Y, Schechter CB, Jayasekera J et al. . Cost effectiveness of gene expression profile testing in community practice. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:554562.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Davis BA, Aminawung JA, Abu-Khalaf MM et al. . Racial and ethnic disparities in Oncotype DX test receipt in a statewide population-based study. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017;15:346354.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF et al. . Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:111121.

  • 22.

    PREDICT Tool Version 2.0: Breast Cancer Survival. Available at: http://www.predict.nhs.uk/predict_v2.0.html. Assessed December 5, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Wishart GC, Bajdik CD, Azzato EM et al. . A population-based validation of the prognostic model PREDICT for early breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011;37:411417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Total Predict Usage. Predict Web site. Available at: http://www.predict.nhs.uk/statistics.html. Assessed July 4, 2017.

  • 25.

    Howlader N, Noone AM, Karpcho M et al. . SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2013. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2016. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2013/, based on November 2015 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2016. Accessed December 15, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A et al. . Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 2016;316:10931103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 2014;371:796797.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Praga C, Bergh J, Bliss J et al. . Risk of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome in trials of adjuvant epirubicin for early breast cancer: correlation with doses of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:41794191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Bowles EJ, Aiello RW, Feigelson HS et al. . Risk of heart failure in breast cancer patients after anthracycline and trastuzumab treatment: a retrospective cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:12931305.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) Peto R, Davies C et al. . Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012;379:432444.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    CMS Increases Final Pricing Determination for Oncotype DX® Breast Cancer Test to Previously Established Rate of $3,416. Available at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cms-increases-final-pricing-determination-for-oncotype-dx-breast-cancer-test-to-previously-established-rate-of-3416-300155572.html. Accessed April 9, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    CMS.gov. License for Use of Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/apps/ama/license.asp?file=/ClinicalLabFeeSched/downloads/2015-CLFS-Gapfill-Final-Determinations.zip. Accessed April 9, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Nadeem H, Jayakrishnan TT, Rajeev R et al. . Cost differential of chemotherapy for solid tumors. J Oncol Pract 2016;12:e299307.

  • 34.

    Campbell HE, Epstein D, Bloomfield D et al. . The cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: a comparison of no chemotherapy and first, second, and third generation regimens for patients with differing prognoses. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:25172530.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Wang SY, Hsu SH, Gross CP et al. . Association between time since cancer diagnosis and health-related quality of life: a population-level analysis. Value Health 2016;19:631638.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R et al. . The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993;13:89102.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Fryback DG, Lawrence WFJ. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Decis Making 1997;17:276284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A et al. . Retrospective costeffectiveness analysis of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:774782.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Sen S, Wang SY, Soulos PR et al. . Examining the cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy among older women with favorable-risk breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Geffen DB, Abu-Ghanem S, Sion-Vardy N et al. . The impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on decision making about adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer in an oncology practice with a unified treatment policy. Ann Oncol 2011;22:23812386.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Hassett MJ, Silver SM, Hughes ME et al. . Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:22182226.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Dinan MA, Mi X, Reed SD et al. . Association between use of the 21-gene recurrence score assay and receipt of chemotherapy among medicare beneficiaries with early-stage breast cancer, 2005-2009. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:10981109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Briggs AH, Goeree R, Blackhouse G et al. . Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making 2002;22:290308.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Jalal H, Pechlivanoglou P, Krijkamp E et al. . An overview of R in health decision sciences. Med Decis Making 2017;37:735746.

  • 45.

    Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ et al. . Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Eng J Med 2016;375:14381447.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    Lannin DR, Wang S. Are small breast cancers good because they are small or small because they are good? N Eng J Med 2017;376:22862291.

  • 47.

    Tang G, Shak S, Paik S et al. . Comparison of the prognostic and predictive utilities of the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay and Adjuvant! for women with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;127:133142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA et al. . Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Making 2012;32:722–-732.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Su KW, Hall J, Soulos PR et al. . Association of 21-gene recurrence score assay and adjuvant chemotherapy use in the medicare population, 2008-2011. J Geriatr Oncol 2016;7:15-–23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50.

    Penault-Llorca F, Radosevic-Robin N. Ki67 assessment in breast cancer: an update. Pathology 2017;49:166171.

  • 51.

    Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY et al. . Lester Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Invasive Carcinoma of the Breast. College of American Pathologists. Available at: https://cap.objects.frb.io/protocols/cp-breast-invasive-2016-v3300.pdf. Published January 2016. Assessed on June 26, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52.

    Chaudhary LN, Jawa Z, Szabo A et al. . Relevance of progesterone receptor immunohistochemical staining to Oncotype DX recurrence score. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther 2016;9:4854.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53.

    Scope A, Essat M, Pandor A et al. . Gene expression profiling and expanded immunohistochemistry tests to guide selection of chemotherapy regimens in breast cancer management: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2017;33:3245.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54.

    Marchionni L, Afsari B, Geman D, Leek JT. A simple and reproducible breast cancer prognostic test. BMC Genomics 2013;14:336.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1376 476 217
PDF Downloads 401 167 14
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0