scholarly journals Swiss cost-effectiveness analysis of universal screening for Lynch syndrome of patients with colorectal cancer followed by cascade genetic testing of relatives

2021 ◽  
pp. jmedgenet-2021-108062
Author(s):  
Islam Salikhanov ◽  
Karl Heinimann ◽  
Pierre Chappuis ◽  
Nicole Buerki ◽  
Rossella Graffeo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lynch Syndrome ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Dna Testing ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Current Strategy ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundWe estimated the cost-effectiveness of universal DNA screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) among newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) followed by cascade screening of relatives from the Swiss healthcare system perspective.MethodsWe integrated decision trees with Markov models to calculate incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year saved by screening all patients with CRC (alternative strategy) compared with CRC tumour-based testing followed by DNA sequencing (current strategy).ResultsThe alternative strategy has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF65 058 compared with the current strategy, which is cost-effective according to Swiss standards. Based on annual incidence of CRC in Switzerland, universal DNA screening correctly identifies all 123 patients with CRC with LS, prevents 17 LS deaths and avoids 19 CRC cases, while the current strategy leads to 32 false negative results and 253 LS cases lost to follow-up. One way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that universal DNA testing is cost-effective in around 80% of scenarios, and that the cost of DNA testing and the number of invited relatives per LS case determine the cost-effectiveness ratio.ConclusionResults can inform policymakers, healthcare providers and insurance companies about the costs and benefits associated with universal screening for LS and cascade genetic testing of relatives.

scholarly journals Next-Generation Sequencing Panels for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer and Polyposis Syndromes: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (18) ◽  
pp. 2084-2091 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos J. Gallego ◽  
Brian H. Shirts ◽  
Caroline S. Bennette ◽  
Greg Guzauskas ◽  
Laura M. Amendola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Lynch Syndrome ◽  
Cancer Genetics ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Purpose To evaluate the cost effectiveness of next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and polyposis (CRCP) syndromes in patients referred to cancer genetics clinics. Patients and Methods We developed a decision model to evaluate NGS panel testing compared with current standard of care in patients referred to a cancer genetics clinic. We obtained data on the prevalence of genetic variants from a large academic laboratory and calculated the costs and health benefits of identifying relatives with a pathogenic variant, in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We classified the CRCP syndromes according to their type of inheritance and penetrance of colorectal cancer. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty. Results Evaluation with an NGS panel that included Lynch syndrome genes and other genes associated with highly penetrant CRCP syndromes led to an average increase of 0.151 year of life, 0.128 QALY, and $4,650 per patient, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,500 per QALY compared with standard care and a 99% probability that this panel was cost effective at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY. When compared with this panel, the addition of genes with low colorectal cancer penetrance resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $77,300 per QALY. Conclusion The use of an NGS panel that includes genes associated with highly penetrant CRCP syndromes in addition to Lynch syndrome genes as a first-line test is likely to provide meaningful clinical benefits in a cost-effective manner at a $100,000 per QALY threshold.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Molecular Screening to Identify Lynch Syndrome in the Patients with Colorectal Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hananeh Azardoost ◽  
Farimah Rahimi ◽  
Mehrdad Zeinalian ◽  
Reza Rezayatmand
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lynch Syndrome ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Tree Model ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
The Cost

Background: Identifying Lynch syndrome (LS) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and monitoring their relatives can increase the life expectancy of these patients. Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of 5 molecular testing strategies to screen LS among patients with newly diagnosed CRC and to conduct preventive surveillance in their first-degree relatives. Methods: A decision tree model was designed to identify the number of LS mutations and the related costs in the CRC patients. Five strategies were modeled, i.e., Amsterdam II criteria, microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, immunohistochemistry (IHC), and next-generation sequencing (NGS). A Marko model was also used to estimate the long-term outcome of monitoring (including colonoscopy and taking aspirin) among relatives of those patients with CRC who carried LS. Results: All strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing condition. The 2 most cost-effective strategies were strategy 2 (IHC testing followed by NGS testing) and strategy 4 (MSI testing followed by NGS testing), with the ICER of 4,604$ and 4,748$ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. Based on one-way sensitivity analysis of IHC sensitivity, the Cost of colonoscopy, MSI sensitivity, and the number of families who inherited LS had the most effect on the results. Conclusions: The findings suggested that from an Iranian health care system perspective, IHC testing followed by NGS testing could be regarded as the most cost-effective strategy compared to the other strategies. These results can be useful in offering to screen LS in newly diagnosed CRC patients.

scholarly journals Cost effectiveness of the cancer prevention program for carriers of the BRCA1/2 mutation

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelo Cristiano de Azevedo Ramos ◽  
Maria Aparecida Azevedo Koike Folgueira ◽  
Simone Maistro ◽  
Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina ◽  
Patricia Coelho de Soárez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
National Health System ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Prophylactic Measures ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost effectiveness of the diagnostic program for the germline mutation in BRCA1/2 genes and of preventative strategies for the relatives of patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer associated with this mutation. METHODS: The study analyzed the cost effectiveness by developing an analysis of the Markov decision process from the perspective of the National Health System. The strategies compared reflect upon the adoption of genetic testing and preventative strategies for relatives or the usual care currently proposed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed in terms of cost per case avoided. The sensitivity analysis was performed in a univariate and deterministic manner. RESULTS: The study showed increments for effectiveness and for costs when performing genetic testing and adopting prophylactic measures for family members. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at R$908.58 per case of cancer avoided, a figure considered lower than the study’s cost-effectiveness threshold (R$7,543.50). CONCLUSIONS: The program analyzed should be considered a cost-effective strategy for the national situation. Studies in various other countries have reached similar conclusions. One possible ramification of this research might the need to perform a budgetary-impact analysis of making the program one of the country’s health policies

scholarly journals Simplified Mathematical Modelling of Uncertainty: Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Spain

Mathematics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 566
Author(s):  
Julio Emilio Marco-Franco ◽  
Pedro Pita-Barros ◽  
Silvia González-de-Julián ◽  
Iryna Sabat ◽  
David Vivas-Consuelo
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Planning ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Reliable Data ◽  
Simplified Model ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Funeral Homes ◽  
The Cost

When exceptional situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, arise and reliable data is not available at decision-making times, estimation using mathematical models can provide a reasonable reckoning for health planning. We present a simplified model (static but with two-time references) for estimating the cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine. A simplified model provides a quick assessment of the upper bound of cost-effectiveness, as we illustrate with data from Spain, and allows for easy comparisons between countries. It may also provide useful comparisons among different vaccines at the marketplace, from the perspective of the buyer. From the analysis of this information, key epidemiological figures, and costs of the disease for Spain have been estimated, based on mortality. The fatality rate is robust data that can alternatively be obtained from death registers, funeral homes, cemeteries, and crematoria. Our model estimates the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to be 5132 € (4926–5276) as of 17 February 2021, based on the following assumptions/inputs: An estimated cost of 30 euros per dose (plus transport, storing, and administration), two doses per person, efficacy of 70% and coverage of 70% of the population. Even considering the possibility of some bias, this simplified model provides confirmation that vaccination against COVID-19 is highly cost-effective.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoaki Sugiura ◽  
Yuki Seo ◽  
Takayuki Takahashi ◽  
Hideyuki Tokura ◽  
Yasuhiro Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is an anticipated combination regimen for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer. However, evidence supporting its use for this indication is limited. We compared the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy with TAS-102 monotherapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Method Markov decision modeling using treatment costs, disease-free survival, and overall survival was performed to examine the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy and TAS-102 monotherapy. The Japanese health care payer’s perspective was adopted. The outcomes were modeled on the basis of published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment regimens was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analysis was performed and the effect of uncertainty on the model parameters were investigated. Results TAS-102 plus bevacizumab had an ICER of $21,534 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with TAS-102 monotherapy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that TAS-102 monotherapy was more cost-effective than TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay of under $50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective option for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer in the Japanese health care system.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (16) ◽  
pp. 8330
Author(s):  
Abdul Rahman Ramdzan ◽  
Mohd Rizal Abdul Manaf ◽  
Azimatun Noor Aizuddin ◽  
Zarina A. Latiff ◽  
Keng Wee Teik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Survival ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Targeted Prevention ◽  
Activity Based Costing ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Cost

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Approximately 3–5% of CRCs are associated with hereditary cancer syndromes. Individuals who harbor germline mutations are at an increased risk of developing early onset CRC, as well as extracolonic tumors. Genetic testing can identify genes that cause these syndromes. Early detection could facilitate the initiation of targeted prevention strategies and surveillance for CRC patients and their families. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of CRC genetic testing. We utilized a cross-sectional design to determine the cost-effectiveness of CRC genetic testing as compared to the usual screening method (iFOBT) from the provider’s perspective. Data on costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 200 CRC patients from three specialist general hospitals were collected. A mixed-methods approach of activity-based costing, top-down costing, and extracted information from a clinical pathway was used to estimate provider costs. Patients and family members’ HRQoL were measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Data from the Malaysian Study on Cancer Survival (MySCan) were used to calculate patient survival. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost per life-year (LY) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The provider cost for CRC genetic testing was high as compared to that for the current screening method. The current practice for screening is cost-saving as compared to genetic testing. Using a 10-year survival analysis, the estimated number of LYs gained for CRC patients through genetic testing was 0.92 years, and the number of QALYs gained was 1.53 years. The cost per LY gained and cost per QALY gained were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) showed that genetic testing dominates iFOBT testing. CRC genetic testing is cost-effective and could be considered as routine CRC screening for clinical practice.

Cost–effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Immunotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Jiang ◽  
Zhichao He ◽  
Tiantian Zhang ◽  
Chongchong Guo ◽  
Jianli Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Egf Receptor ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost–effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost–effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of two long-lasting insecticidal nets delivery models in mass campaign in rural Mozambique

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge A. H. Arroz ◽  
Baltazar Candrinho ◽  
Chandana Mendis ◽  
Melanie Lopez ◽  
Maria do Rosário O. Martins
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Universal Coverage ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Net Benefit ◽  
Incremental Net Benefit ◽  
The Cost ◽  
And Control ◽  
Delivery Models ◽  
Long Lasting Insecticidal Nets

Abstract Objective The aim is to compare the cost-effectiveness of two long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) delivery models (standard vs. new) in universal coverage (UC) campaigns in rural Mozambique. Results The total financial cost of delivering LLINs was US$ 231,237.30 and US$ 174,790.14 in the intervention (302,648 LLINs were delivered) and control districts (219,613 LLINs were delivered), respectively. The average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) per LLIN delivered and ACER per household (HH) achieving UC was lower in the intervention districts. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per LLIN and ICER per HH reaching UC were US$ 0.68 and US$ 2.24, respectively. Both incremental net benefit (for delivered LLIN and for HHs reaching UC) were positive (intervention deemed cost-effective). Overall, the newer delivery model was the more cost-effective intervention. However, the long-term sustainability of either delivery models is far from guaranteed in Mozambique’s current economic context.

scholarly journals Cytomegalovirus Screening in Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness and Threshold Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (07) ◽  
pp. 678-687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Albright ◽  
Erika F. Werner ◽  
Brenna L. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Intervention Effectiveness ◽  
Behavioral Counseling ◽  
The Cost ◽  
In Pregnancy

Objective To determine threshold cytomegalovirus (CMV) infectious rates and treatment effectiveness to make universal prenatal CMV screening cost-effective. Study Design Decision analysis comparing cost-effectiveness of two strategies for the prevention and treatment of congenital CMV: universal prenatal serum screening and routine, risk-based screening. The base case assumptions were a probability of primary CMV of 1% in seronegative women, hyperimmune globulin (HIG) effectiveness of 0%, and behavioral intervention effectiveness of 85%. Screen-positive women received monthly HIG and screen-negative women received behavioral counseling to decrease CMV seroconversion. The primary outcome was the cost per maternal quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Results In the base case, universal screening is cost-effective, costing $84,773 per maternal QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, universal screening is cost-effective only at a primary CMV incidence of more than 0.89% and behavioral intervention effectiveness of more than 75%. If HIG is 30% effective, primary CMV incidence can be 0.82% for universal screening to be cost-effective. Conclusion The cost-effectiveness of universal maternal screening for CMV is highly dependent on the incidence of primary CMV in pregnancy. If efficacious, HIG and behavioral counseling allow universal screening to be cost-effective at lower primary CMV rates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document