PurposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BRCA testing in women with breast cancer, and cascade testing in family members of BRCA mutation carriers.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a cohort Markov model from a health-payer perspective. The model estimated the long-term benefits and costs of testing women with breast cancer who had at least a 10% pretest BRCA mutation probability, and the cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives of women who test positive.ResultsCompared with no testing, BRCA testing of affected women resulted in an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of AU$18,900 (incremental cost AU$1,880; incremental QALY gain 0.10) with reductions of 0.04 breast and 0.01 ovarian cancer events. Testing affected women and cascade testing of family members resulted in an incremental cost per QALY gained of AU$9,500 compared with testing affected women only (incremental cost AU$665; incremental QALY gain 0.07) with additional reductions of 0.06 breast and 0.01 ovarian cancer events.ConclusionBRCA testing in women with breast cancer is cost-effective and is associated with reduced risk of cancer and improved survival. Extending testing to cover family members of affected women who test positive improves cost-effectiveness beyond restricting testing to affected women only.GENETICS in MEDICINE advance online publication, 4 January 2018; doi:10.1038/gim.2017.231.

Tuffaha, H.W., Mitchell, A., Ward, R.L., Connelly, L., Butler, J.R.G., Norris, S., et al. (2018). Cost-effectiveness analysis of germ-line BRCA testing in women with breast cancer and cascade testing in family members of mutation carriers. GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 20(9), 985-994 [10.1038/gim.2017.231].

Cost-effectiveness analysis of germ-line BRCA testing in women with breast cancer and cascade testing in family members of mutation carriers

Connelly, Luke;
2018

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BRCA testing in women with breast cancer, and cascade testing in family members of BRCA mutation carriers.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a cohort Markov model from a health-payer perspective. The model estimated the long-term benefits and costs of testing women with breast cancer who had at least a 10% pretest BRCA mutation probability, and the cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives of women who test positive.ResultsCompared with no testing, BRCA testing of affected women resulted in an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of AU$18,900 (incremental cost AU$1,880; incremental QALY gain 0.10) with reductions of 0.04 breast and 0.01 ovarian cancer events. Testing affected women and cascade testing of family members resulted in an incremental cost per QALY gained of AU$9,500 compared with testing affected women only (incremental cost AU$665; incremental QALY gain 0.07) with additional reductions of 0.06 breast and 0.01 ovarian cancer events.ConclusionBRCA testing in women with breast cancer is cost-effective and is associated with reduced risk of cancer and improved survival. Extending testing to cover family members of affected women who test positive improves cost-effectiveness beyond restricting testing to affected women only.GENETICS in MEDICINE advance online publication, 4 January 2018; doi:10.1038/gim.2017.231.
2018
Tuffaha, H.W., Mitchell, A., Ward, R.L., Connelly, L., Butler, J.R.G., Norris, S., et al. (2018). Cost-effectiveness analysis of germ-line BRCA testing in women with breast cancer and cascade testing in family members of mutation carriers. GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 20(9), 985-994 [10.1038/gim.2017.231].
Tuffaha, Haitham W; Mitchell, Andrew; Ward, Robyn L; Connelly, Luke; Butler, James R G; Norris, Sarah; Scuffham, Paul A
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/621865
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 35
  • Scopus 79
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 77
social impact