BRCA testing in women younger than 50 with triple-negative breast cancer is cost effective

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 611-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Hutchinson
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Brca Testing

scholarly journals BRCA Detection Rate in an Italian Cohort of Luminal Early-Onset and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients without Family History: When Biology Overcomes Genealogy

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Toss ◽  
Eleonora Molinaro ◽  
Marta Venturelli ◽  
Federica Domati ◽  
Luigi Marcheselli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Family History ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Early Onset ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Brca2 Mutation ◽  
Brca Testing ◽  
Brca Genetic Testing

NCCN Guidelines recommend BRCA genetic testing in individuals with a probability >5% of being a carrier. Nonetheless, the cost-effectiveness of testing individuals with no tumor family history is still debated, especially when BRCA testing is offered by the national health service. Our analysis evaluated the rate of BRCA pathogenic or likely-pathogenic variants in 159 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients diagnosed ≤60 years, and 109 luminal-like breast cancer (BC) patients diagnosed ≤35 without breast and/or ovarian family histories. In TNBC patients, BRCA mutation prevalence was 22.6% (21.4% BRCA1). Mutation prevalence was 64.2% ≤30 years, 31.8% in patients aged 31–40, 16.1% for those aged 41–50 and 7.9% in 51–60 s. A total of 40% of patients with estrogen receptors (ER) 1–9% were BRCA1 carriers. BRCA detection rate in early-onset BCs was 6.4% (4.6% BRCA2). Mutation prevalence was 0% between 0–25 years, 9% between 26–30 years and 6% between 31–35 years. In conclusion, BRCA testing is recommended in TNBC patients diagnosed ≤60 years, regardless of family cancer history or histotype, and by using immunohistochemical staining <10% for both ER and/PR. In luminal-like early-onset BC, a lower BRCA detection rate was observed, suggesting a role for other predisposing genes along with BRCA genetic testing.

Are patients with triple-negative breast cancer screened for BRCA mutations according to NCCN guidelines?

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7-7
Author(s):  
Staci Aubry ◽  
Lindsay Floch Petersen ◽  
Kelly Burgess ◽  
Ruta D. Rao ◽  
Katherine Kopkash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
African American ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Brca Testing ◽  
Brca Mutations ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Primary Payer ◽  
Cancer Network

7 Background: Ten to 25 percent of patients diagnosed with breast cancer have triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), defined as tumors negative for estrogen, progesterone, and Her2-neu receptors. TNBC is more aggressive than receptor positive cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends BRCA genetic testing for women less than age 60 when diagnosed with TNBC. Methods: The Commission on Cancer registry tumor database was queried for TNBC from 2006 to 2013. Patient demographics were analyzed. Data regarding pathologic details and BRCA testing was collected. Analyses using the Fisher's exact test were conducted. Results: TNBC tumors were identified in the database (n = 173). Sixty-one percent (105/173) of patients were less than 60 years of age, therefore BRCA testing was indicated. Fifteen patients were BRCA positive. Eighty-three percent (87/105) of patients underwent BRCA testing. Seventeen percent (18/105) of patients did not receive BRCA testing that should have under the current guidelines. Patients that did not undergo recommended BRCA testing were more likely to be greater than or equal to 55 years of age (p = 0.002), African-American (p = 0.001), have Medicaid listed as a primary payer (p = 0.021), and have American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) stage 3 disease (p = 0.014). Conclusions: Risk factors for not completing BRCA testing include older age, African-American race, Medicaid insurance status, and stage 3 disease. Health provider awareness of this opportunity for improvement is important to decrease these health disparities. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Prospective Evaluation of Universal BRCA Testing for Women With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Trisha S Emborgo ◽  
Donika Saporito ◽  
Kimberly I Muse ◽  
Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera ◽  
Jennifer K Litton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Brca Testing ◽  
Clinical Genetic ◽  
Large Rearrangement ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Cancer Network

Abstract Background Limited published literature exists on women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) diagnosed over the age of 60 years with breast cancer gene (BRCA) pathogenic variants. Our study determined whether the rate of BRCA pathogenic variants in a prospective cohort of TNBC patients outside the definition of current clinical genetic testing (GT) guidelines warrants a change in recommendations. Methods A prospective study of 395 women with TNBC underwent genetic counseling and 380 (96.2%) underwent clinical BRCA GT regardless of age of diagnosis beginning January 2014 to October 2015 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. TNBC patients older than 60 years who did not meet clinical GT guidelines had comprehensive sequencing and large rearrangement GT as part of the research protocol. Results Fifty-one of 380 (13.4%) women with TNBC who underwent clinical BRCA GT were BRCA positive. Of the 86 patients diagnosed at age over 60 years and underwent GT, only two (2.3%) were positive for BRCA. These two patients would have met clinical testing criteria due to family or ancestral history. Conclusions Our study does not support universal BRCA testing for TNBC patients diagnosed older than 60 years as their only risk factor for a BRCA pathogenic variant. Both of the positive BRCA patients older than 60 years identified would have met current National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for testing. Therefore, our study demonstrates that the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines provide sufficient criteria for identifying BRCA pathogenic variants in women with TNBC at 60 years or younger.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592091600
Author(s):  
Bin Wu ◽  
Fei Ma
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Therapy Cost ◽  
Paclitaxel Treatment

Background: The effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on advanced TNBC from the US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was adopted to project the disease course of newly diagnosed advanced TNBC. The clinical data were gathered from the IMpassion130 trial. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed for exploring the model uncertainties. Results: Our results demonstrated that atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel augmented versus nab-paclitaxel therapy cost $104,278 and $149,465 and yielded an additional 0.371 and 0.762 of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in in all patients with unknown PD-L1 status and subpopulation with PD-L1-positive, respectively, which led to an ICER of $281,448 and $196,073 per QALY gained. In all patients with unknown PD-L1 status, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment guiding by PD-L1 expression testing resulted in an ICER of $183,508 per QALY gained. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel could maintain a trend of positive incremental net health benefits and >50% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY in more than half of subgroups with PD-L1-positive. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel versus nab-paclitaxel treatment. Conclusion: The atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy based on nab-paclitaxel for the patients with PD-L1-positive advanced TNBC.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Cheng Phua ◽  
Soo Chin Lee ◽  
Kwong Ng ◽  
Mohamed Ismail Abdul Aziz
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective. Methods A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties. Results Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at $67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the combination therapy was unlikely to be cost-effective even under extremely favourable assumptions. Conclusions Given the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent a cost-effective use of healthcare resources for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Cheng Phua ◽  
Soo Chin Lee ◽  
Kwong Ng ◽  
Mohamed Ismail Abdul Aziz
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective. Methods A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties. Results Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at $67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the combination therapy was unlikely to be cost-effective even under extremely favourable assumptions. Conclusions Given the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent a cost-effective use of healthcare resources for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document