A review of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for germline variants in familial cancer. (31st December 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Teppala, Srinivas; Hodgkinson, Brent; Hayes, Sandi; Scuffham, Paul; Tuffaha, Haitham
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical economics. Volume 26:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: 19
• Page End: 33
• Publication Date: 2023-12-31
• Subjects: Germline testing -- breast cancer -- ovarian cancer -- colorectal cancer -- prostate cancer -- cost-effectiveness; CRD42020161967; I00 -- I -- A10 -- A1 -- A; Medical care -- Cost control -- Periodicals; Medical economics -- Periodicals; 362.10941
• DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2022.2152233
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6998

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Targeted germline testing is recommended for those with or at risk of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. The affordability of genetic sequencing has improved over the past decade, therefore the cost-effectiveness of testing for these cancers is worthy of reassessment. Objective: To systematically review economic evaluations on cost-effectiveness of germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. Methods: A search of PubMed and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies on germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer, published between 1999 and May 2022. Synthesis of methodology, cost-effectiveness, and reporting (CHEERS checklist) was performed. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; in 2021-adjusted US$) for germline testing versus the standard care option in hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (HBOC) across target settings were as follows: (1) population-wide testing: 344–2.5 million/QALY; (2) women with high-risk: dominant = 78, 118/QALY, 8, 337–59, 708/LYG; (3) existing breast or ovarian cancer: 3, 012–72, 566/QALY, 39, 835/LYG; and (4) metastatic breast cancer: 158, 630/QALY. Likewise, ICERs of germline testing for colorectal cancer across settings were: (1) population-wide testing: 132, 200/QALY, 1.1 million/LYG; (2) people with high-risk: 32, 322–76, 750/QALY, dominant = 353/LYG; and (3) patients with existing colorectal cancer: dominant = 54, 122/QALY, 98, 790–6.3 million/LYG. Key areas of underreporting were the inclusion of a health economic analysis plan (100% of HBOC and colorectal studies), engagement of patients and stakeholders (95.4% of HBOC, 100% of colorectal studies) and measurement of outcomes (18.2% HBOC, 38.9% of colorectal studies). Conclusion: Germline testing for HBOC was likely to be cost-effective across most settings, except when used as a co-dependent technology with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib in metastatic breast cancer. In colorectal cancer studies, testing was cost-effective in those with high-risk, but inconclusive in other settings. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the prevalence of tested variants, cost of testing, uptake, and benefits of prophylactic measures. Policy advice on germline testing should emphasize the importance of these factors in their recommendations. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Breast, ovarian, prostate, and colorectal cancers are among the top causes of cancer related deaths. A substantial proportion of people with these cancers have inherited mutations. The identification of these gene abnormalities could provide people with opportunities to utilize preventive risk reduction surgeries or undertake frequent routine testing for these cancers. However, genetic testing requires healthcare resources and money. Previous reviews on the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing in familial cancers have concluded that targeted screening i.e., selective assessment of people at high-risk could justify the costs of testing. Our evaluation of economic studies in breast and ovarian cancer, however, suggests that genetic testing is cost-effective across a wide variety of situations starting from the screening of all healthy women above 30 years to the testing of women with existing breast or ovarian cancer. Testing in metastatic breast cancer to inform treatment with Olaparib, a drug known to selectively improve survival in people with genetic mutations, was the sole exception where testing was not cost-effective. Contrary to findings for breast or ovarian cancer, testing for colorectal cancer was cost-effective in people with high-risk i.e., family history but inconclusive in other situations. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of testing in prostate cancer is lacking and as a result we were not able to provide advice in this cancer group.