Cost effectiveness of gene expression profile testing in community practice

Young Chandler, Clyde B. Schechter, Jinani Jayasekera, Aimee Near, Suzanne C. O'Neill, Claudine Isaacs, Charles E. Phelps, G. Thomas Ray, Tracy A. Lieu, Scott Ramsey, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose Gene expression profile (GEP) testing can support chemotherapy decision making for patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative breast cancers. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of one GEP test, Oncotype DX (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA), in community practice with test-eligible patients age 40 to 79 years. Methods A simulation model compared 25-year societal incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of community Oncotype DX use from 2005 to 2012 versus usual care in the pretesting era (2000 to 2004). Inputs included Oncotype DX and chemotherapy data from an integrated health care system and national and published data on Oncotype DX accuracy, chemotherapy effectiveness, utilities, survival and recurrence, and Medicare and patient costs. Sensitivity analyses varied individual parameters; results were also estimated for ideal conditions (ie, 100% testing and adherence to test-suggested treatment, perfect test accuracy, considering test effects on reassurance or worry, and lowest costs). Results Twenty-four percent of test-eligible patients had Oncotype DX testing. Testing was higher in younger patients and patientswith stage I disease (v stage IIA), and 75.3%and 10.2%of patients with high and low recurrence risk scores received chemotherapy, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio for testing (v usual care) was $188,125 per QALY. Considering test effects on worry versus reassurance decreased the cost-effectiveness ratio to $58,431 per QALY. With perfect test accuracy, the costeffectiveness ratio was $28,947 per QALY, and under ideal conditions, it was $39,496 per QALY. Conclusion GEP testing is likely to have a high cost-effectiveness ratio on the basis of community practice patterns. However, realistic variations in assumptions about key variables could result in GEP testing having cost-effectiveness ratios in the range of other accepted interventions. The differences in cost-effectiveness ratios on the basis of community versus ideal conditions underscore the importance of considering real-world implementation when assessing the new technology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)554-562
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume36
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 20 2018

Fingerprint

Transcriptome
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Therapy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Sequoia
Integrated Delivery of Health Care
Recurrence
Medicare
Epidermal Growth Factor
Estrogen Receptors
Decision Making
Breast Neoplasms
Technology
Survival
Health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Chandler, Y., Schechter, C. B., Jayasekera, J., Near, A., O'Neill, S. C., Isaacs, C., ... Mandelblatt, J. S. (2018). Cost effectiveness of gene expression profile testing in community practice. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 36(6), 554-562. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.74.5034

Cost effectiveness of gene expression profile testing in community practice. / Chandler, Young; Schechter, Clyde B.; Jayasekera, Jinani; Near, Aimee; O'Neill, Suzanne C.; Isaacs, Claudine; Phelps, Charles E.; Ray, G. Thomas; Lieu, Tracy A.; Ramsey, Scott; Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 36, No. 6, 20.02.2018, p. 554-562.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chandler, Y, Schechter, CB, Jayasekera, J, Near, A, O'Neill, SC, Isaacs, C, Phelps, CE, Ray, GT, Lieu, TA, Ramsey, S & Mandelblatt, JS 2018, 'Cost effectiveness of gene expression profile testing in community practice', Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 554-562. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.74.5034
Chandler, Young ; Schechter, Clyde B. ; Jayasekera, Jinani ; Near, Aimee ; O'Neill, Suzanne C. ; Isaacs, Claudine ; Phelps, Charles E. ; Ray, G. Thomas ; Lieu, Tracy A. ; Ramsey, Scott ; Mandelblatt, Jeanne S. / Cost effectiveness of gene expression profile testing in community practice. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2018 ; Vol. 36, No. 6. pp. 554-562.
@article{9cfd471afc3c434ba343274e61da7430,
title = "Cost effectiveness of gene expression profile testing in community practice",
abstract = "Purpose Gene expression profile (GEP) testing can support chemotherapy decision making for patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative breast cancers. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of one GEP test, Oncotype DX (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA), in community practice with test-eligible patients age 40 to 79 years. Methods A simulation model compared 25-year societal incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of community Oncotype DX use from 2005 to 2012 versus usual care in the pretesting era (2000 to 2004). Inputs included Oncotype DX and chemotherapy data from an integrated health care system and national and published data on Oncotype DX accuracy, chemotherapy effectiveness, utilities, survival and recurrence, and Medicare and patient costs. Sensitivity analyses varied individual parameters; results were also estimated for ideal conditions (ie, 100{\%} testing and adherence to test-suggested treatment, perfect test accuracy, considering test effects on reassurance or worry, and lowest costs). Results Twenty-four percent of test-eligible patients had Oncotype DX testing. Testing was higher in younger patients and patientswith stage I disease (v stage IIA), and 75.3{\%}and 10.2{\%}of patients with high and low recurrence risk scores received chemotherapy, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio for testing (v usual care) was $188,125 per QALY. Considering test effects on worry versus reassurance decreased the cost-effectiveness ratio to $58,431 per QALY. With perfect test accuracy, the costeffectiveness ratio was $28,947 per QALY, and under ideal conditions, it was $39,496 per QALY. Conclusion GEP testing is likely to have a high cost-effectiveness ratio on the basis of community practice patterns. However, realistic variations in assumptions about key variables could result in GEP testing having cost-effectiveness ratios in the range of other accepted interventions. The differences in cost-effectiveness ratios on the basis of community versus ideal conditions underscore the importance of considering real-world implementation when assessing the new technology.",
author = "Young Chandler and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and Jinani Jayasekera and Aimee Near and O'Neill, {Suzanne C.} and Claudine Isaacs and Phelps, {Charles E.} and Ray, {G. Thomas} and Lieu, {Tracy A.} and Scott Ramsey and Mandelblatt, {Jeanne S.}",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2017.74.5034",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "554--562",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost effectiveness of gene expression profile testing in community practice

AU - Chandler, Young

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Jayasekera, Jinani

AU - Near, Aimee

AU - O'Neill, Suzanne C.

AU - Isaacs, Claudine

AU - Phelps, Charles E.

AU - Ray, G. Thomas

AU - Lieu, Tracy A.

AU - Ramsey, Scott

AU - Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.

PY - 2018/2/20

Y1 - 2018/2/20

N2 - Purpose Gene expression profile (GEP) testing can support chemotherapy decision making for patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative breast cancers. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of one GEP test, Oncotype DX (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA), in community practice with test-eligible patients age 40 to 79 years. Methods A simulation model compared 25-year societal incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of community Oncotype DX use from 2005 to 2012 versus usual care in the pretesting era (2000 to 2004). Inputs included Oncotype DX and chemotherapy data from an integrated health care system and national and published data on Oncotype DX accuracy, chemotherapy effectiveness, utilities, survival and recurrence, and Medicare and patient costs. Sensitivity analyses varied individual parameters; results were also estimated for ideal conditions (ie, 100% testing and adherence to test-suggested treatment, perfect test accuracy, considering test effects on reassurance or worry, and lowest costs). Results Twenty-four percent of test-eligible patients had Oncotype DX testing. Testing was higher in younger patients and patientswith stage I disease (v stage IIA), and 75.3%and 10.2%of patients with high and low recurrence risk scores received chemotherapy, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio for testing (v usual care) was $188,125 per QALY. Considering test effects on worry versus reassurance decreased the cost-effectiveness ratio to $58,431 per QALY. With perfect test accuracy, the costeffectiveness ratio was $28,947 per QALY, and under ideal conditions, it was $39,496 per QALY. Conclusion GEP testing is likely to have a high cost-effectiveness ratio on the basis of community practice patterns. However, realistic variations in assumptions about key variables could result in GEP testing having cost-effectiveness ratios in the range of other accepted interventions. The differences in cost-effectiveness ratios on the basis of community versus ideal conditions underscore the importance of considering real-world implementation when assessing the new technology.

AB - Purpose Gene expression profile (GEP) testing can support chemotherapy decision making for patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative breast cancers. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of one GEP test, Oncotype DX (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA), in community practice with test-eligible patients age 40 to 79 years. Methods A simulation model compared 25-year societal incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of community Oncotype DX use from 2005 to 2012 versus usual care in the pretesting era (2000 to 2004). Inputs included Oncotype DX and chemotherapy data from an integrated health care system and national and published data on Oncotype DX accuracy, chemotherapy effectiveness, utilities, survival and recurrence, and Medicare and patient costs. Sensitivity analyses varied individual parameters; results were also estimated for ideal conditions (ie, 100% testing and adherence to test-suggested treatment, perfect test accuracy, considering test effects on reassurance or worry, and lowest costs). Results Twenty-four percent of test-eligible patients had Oncotype DX testing. Testing was higher in younger patients and patientswith stage I disease (v stage IIA), and 75.3%and 10.2%of patients with high and low recurrence risk scores received chemotherapy, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio for testing (v usual care) was $188,125 per QALY. Considering test effects on worry versus reassurance decreased the cost-effectiveness ratio to $58,431 per QALY. With perfect test accuracy, the costeffectiveness ratio was $28,947 per QALY, and under ideal conditions, it was $39,496 per QALY. Conclusion GEP testing is likely to have a high cost-effectiveness ratio on the basis of community practice patterns. However, realistic variations in assumptions about key variables could result in GEP testing having cost-effectiveness ratios in the range of other accepted interventions. The differences in cost-effectiveness ratios on the basis of community versus ideal conditions underscore the importance of considering real-world implementation when assessing the new technology.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042044573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042044573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.5034

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.5034

M3 - Article

C2 - 29309250

AN - SCOPUS:85042044573

VL - 36

SP - 554

EP - 562

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 6

ER -