A review of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for germline variants in familial cancer

References

• NCCN. 2022. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology, breast cancer. Version 4.2022. Avaialble from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• NCCN. 2022. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology, colon cancer. Version 1.2022. Avaialble from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• NCCN. 2022. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology, ovarian cancer including fallopian tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer. Version 4.2022. Avaialble from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ovarian.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ashour M, Ezzat Shafik H. Frequency of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in ovarian cancer patients and their effect on treatment outcome. CMAR. 2019;11:6275–6284.
   Google Scholar
• Macrae FA. Colorectal cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, and protective factors. In: Goldberg RM, Seres D, editor. UpToDate. Waltham (MA): UpToDate Inc; 2022. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/colorectal-cancer-epidemiology-risk-factors-and-protective-factors
   Google Scholar
• Sun J, Meng H, Yao L, et al. Germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes in a large series of unselected breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(20):6113–6119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yurgelun MB, Kulke MH, Fuchs CS, et al. Cancer susceptibility gene mutations in individuals with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1086–1095.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stigliano V, Sanchez-Mete L, Martayan A, et al. Early-onset colorectal cancer: a sporadic or inherited disease? World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(35):12420–12430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IM, Hop WC, et al. BRCA1 mutation and young age predict fast breast cancer growth in the Dutch, United Kingdom, and Canadian magnetic resonance imaging screening trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(24):7357–7362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans DGR, Ingham SL. Reduced life expectancy seen in hereditary diseases which predispose to early-onset tumors. Appl Clin Genet. 2013;6:53–61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yurgelun MB, Hampel H. Recent advances in lynch syndrome: diagnosis, treatment, and cancer prevention. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38:101–109.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jatoi I. Risk-Reducing options for women with a hereditary breast cancer predisposition. Eur J Breast Health. 2018;14(4):189–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Marco MED, Panic N, Baccolini V, et al. Which lynch syndrome screening programs could be implemented in the “real world”? A systematic review of economic evaluations. Genet Med. 2018;20(10):1131–1144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koldehoff A, Danner M, Civello D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of targeted genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Value Health. 2021;24(2):303–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosse SD. When is genomic testing cost-effective? Testing for lynch syndrome in patients with newly-diagnosed colorectal cancer and their relatives. Healthcare. 2015;3(4):860–878.
   Google Scholar
• Cenin DR, Naber SK, de Weerdt AC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of personalized screening for colorectal cancer based on polygenic risk and family history. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020;29(1):10–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzauskas GF, Jiang S, Garbett S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for lynch syndrome in the United States. Genet Med. 2022;24(5):1017–1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang YJ, Killen J, Caruana M, et al. The predicted impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing of people with incident colorectal cancer for lynch syndrome. Med J Aust. 2020;212(2):72–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Lin S, Zhong L, et al. Is olaparib cost effective in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one favorable gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM? Pharmacogenomics. 2021;22(13):809–819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaan N, Leshno M, Safra T, et al. Cost effectiveness of whole population BRCA genetic screening for cancer prevention in Israel. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2021;14(4):455–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pastorino R, Basile M, Tognetto A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of genetic diagnostic strategies for lynch syndrome in Italy. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0235038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramdzan AR, Manaf MRA, Aizuddin AN, et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer genetic testing. IJERPH. 2021;18(16):8330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salikhanov I, Heinimann K, Chappuis P, et al. Swiss cost-effectiveness analysis of universal screening for lynch syndrome of patients with colorectal cancer followed by Cascade genetic testing of relatives. J Med Genet. 2022;59(9):924–930.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Su D, Wu B, Shi L. Cost-effectiveness of genomic test-directed olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:610601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun L, Cui B, Wei X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for all women diagnosed with breast cancer in China. Cancers. 2022;14(7):1839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saito S, Nakazawa K, Nagahashi M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of BRCA1/2 mutation profiling to target olaparib use in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Per Med. 2019;16(6):439–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai K, Hooker G, Gilbert K, et al. Real-world trends in costs of next generation sequencing (NGS) testing in U.S. setting. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(15_suppl):e18824–e18824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrucelli N, Daly MB, Pal T. 1993. BRCA1- and BRCA2-Associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. In: Adam MP, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, Wallace SE, Bean LJH, Gripp KW, Amemiya A, editors. GeneReviews(®). Seattle: University of Washington. (Copyright © 1993-2022, University of Washington, Seattle. GeneReviews is a registered trademark of the University of Washington, Seattle. All rights reserved.).
   Google Scholar
• CCEMG-EPPI-Centre. 2022. Campbell and cochrane economics methods group and the evidence for policy and practice information and coordinating centre. CCEMG–EPPI-Centre cost converter. Available from: https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/costconversion/
   Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ. 2022;376:e067975.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Manchanda R, Sun L, Patel S, et al. Economic evaluation of population-based brca1/brca2 mutation testing across multiple countries and health systems. Cancers. 2020;12(7):1929–1938.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurry M, Eccleston A, Dyer M, et al. Canadian cost-effectiveness model of BRCA-driven surgical prevention of breast/ovarian cancers compared to treatment if cancer develops. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(2):104–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzauskas GF, Garbett S, Zhou Z, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2022874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun L, Brentnall A, Patel S, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of multigene testing for all patients with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(12):1718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moya-Alarcón C, González-Domínguez A, Simon S, et al. Cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA1/2 testing in women with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain. Clin Transl Oncol. 2019;21(8):1076–1084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuffaha HW, Mitchell A, Ward RL, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of germ-line BRCA testing in women with breast cancer and Cascade testing in family members of mutation carriers. Genet Med. 2018;20(9):985–994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel S, Legood R, Evans DG, et al. Cost effectiveness of population based BRCA1 founder mutation testing in Sephardi Jewish women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(4):431.e431–431.e412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchanda R, Patel S, Gordeev VS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, PALB2 mutation testing in unselected general population women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(7):714–725.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lim KK, Yoon SY, Mohd Taib NA, et al. Is BRCA mutation testing cost effective for early stage breast cancer patients compared to routine clinical surveillance? The case of an upper middle-income country in Asia. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16(3):395–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchanda R, Patel S, Antoniou AC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population based BRCA testing with varying Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 2017;217(5):578.e571–578.e512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Arellano AR, Bare LA, et al. A multigene test could cost-effectively help extend life expectancy for women at risk of hereditary breast cancer. Value Health. 2017;20(4):547–555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eccleston A, Bentley A, Dyer M, et al. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in UK women with ovarian cancer. Value Health. 2017;20(4):567–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchanda R, Legood R, Burnell M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population screening for BRCA mutations in Ashkenazi jewish women compared with family history-based testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(1):380.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Green LE, Dinh TA, Hinds DA, et al. Economic evaluation of using a genetic test to direct breast cancer chemoprevention in white women with a previous breast biopsy. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(2):203–217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kwon JS, Daniels MS, Sun CC, et al. Preventing future cancers by testing women with ovarian cancer for BRCA mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):675–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland ML, Huston A, Noyes K. Cost-effectiveness of testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes. Value Health. 2009;12(2):207–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balmaña J, Sanz J, Bonfill X, et al. Genetic counseling program in familial breast cancer: analysis of its effectiveness, cost and cost-effectiveness ratio. Int J Cancer. 2004;112(4):647–652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tengs TO, Berry DA. The cost effectiveness of testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. Dis Manag Clin Outcomes. 2000;2:15–24.
   Google Scholar
• Grann VR, Whang W, Jacobson JS, et al. Benefits and costs of screening Ashkenazi Jewish women for BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(2):494–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira C, Areia M, Dinis-Ribeiro M. Cost-utility analysis of genetic polymorphism universal screening in colorectal cancer prevention by detection of high-risk individuals. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51(12):1731–1737.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen YE, Kao SS, Chung RH. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different genetic testing strategies for lynch syndrome in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snowsill T, Huxley N, Hoyle M, et al. A model-based assessment of the cost–utility of strategies to identify lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2015;15(1):313.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Severin F, Stollenwerk B, Holinski-Feder E, et al. Economic evaluation of genetic screening for lynch syndrome in Germany. Genet Med. 2015;17(10):765–773.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallego CJ, Shirts BH, Bennette CS, et al. Next-generation sequencing panels for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(18):2084–2091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barzi A, Sadeghi S, Kattan MW, et al. Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for lynch syndrome. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv005.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang VW, Koh PK, Chow WL, et al. Predictive genetic testing of first degree relatives of mutation carriers is a cost-effective strategy in preventing hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer in Singapore. Fam Cancer. 2012;11(2):279–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J, et al. Strategies to identify the lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):69–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinh TA, Rosner BI, Atwood JC, et al. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for lynch syndrome in the general population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(1):9–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mvundura M, Grosse SD, Hampel H, et al. The cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies for lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer. Genet Med. 2010;12(2):93–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen KR, Bojesen SE, Gerdes AM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance programs for families at high and moderate risk of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):89–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen M, Hes FJ, Vasen HF, et al. Cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in families of patients with germline MUTYH mutations. BMC Med Genet. 2007;8(1):42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Breheny N, Geelhoed E, Goldblatt J, et al. Economic evaluation of the familial cancer programme in Western Australia: predictive genetic testing for familial adenomatous polyposis and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal carcinoma. Community Genet. 2006;9(2):98–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nicolosi P, Ledet E, Yang S, et al. Prevalence of germline variants in prostate cancer and implications for current genetic testing guidelines. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(4):523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pritchard CC, Mateo J, Walsh MF, et al. Inherited DNA-repair gene mutations in men with metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(5):443–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCN 2022. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology, prostate cancer. version 1.2023. Avaialble from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Sokolova A, Cheng H. Germline testing in prostate cancer: when and who to test. Oncology (Williston Park). 2021;35(10):645–653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szymaniak BM, Facchini LA, Giri VN, et al. Practical considerations and challenges for germline genetic testing in patients with prostate cancer: recommendations from the germline genetics working group of the PCCTC. J Clin Oncol Oncol Pract. 2020;16(12):811–819.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Giri VN, Knudsen KE, Kelly WK, et al. Implementation of germline testing for prostate cancer: Philadelphia prostate cancer consensus conference 2019. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(24):2798–2811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bono J, Mateo J, Fizazi K, et al. Olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(22):2091–2102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abida W, Patnaik A, Campbell D, et al. Rucaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene alteration. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(32):3763–3772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadows RJ, Padamsee TJ. Financial constraints on genetic counseling and further risk-management decisions among U.S. women at elevated breast cancer risk. J Genet Couns. 2021;30(5):1452–1467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salhab M, Bismohun S, Mokbel K. Risk-reducing strategies for women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations with a focus on prophylactic surgery. BMC Womens Health. 2010;10:28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE, et al. Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the US Multi-society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(8):1159–1179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Møller P, Seppälä T, Bernstein I, et al. Incidence of and survival after subsequent cancers in carriers of pathogenic MMR variants with previous cancer: a report from the prospective lynch syndrome database. Gut. 2017;66(9):1657–1664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dueñas N, Navarro M, Teulé À, et al. Assessing effectiveness of colonic and gynecological risk reducing surgery in lynch syndrome individuals. Cancers. 2020;12(11):3419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stjepanovic N, Moreira L, Carneiro F, et al. Hereditary gastrointestinal cancers: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(10):1558–1571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves J, Garbett S, Zhou Z, et al. Comparison of decision modeling approaches for health technology and policy evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(4):453–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt TL, Luce BR, Page MJ, et al. Willingness to pay for cancer prevention. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(4):299–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong ASJ, Lim YH, Cheong MWL, et al. Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23(6):1037–1057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins M, Latimer N. NICE’s end of life decision making scheme: impact on population health. BMJ. 2013;346:f1363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seghers P, Wiersma A, Festen S, et al. Patient preferences for treatment outcomes in oncology with a focus on the older patient-A systematic review. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(5):1147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baranova A, Krasnoselskyi M, Starikov V, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: current treatment strategies and factors of negative prognosis. J Med Life. 2022;15(2):153–161.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ginsburg GS, Phillips KA. Precision medicine: from science to value. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(5):694–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicente AM, Ballensiefen W, Jönsson J-I. How personalised medicine will transform healthcare by 2030: the ICPerMed vision. J Transl Med. 2020;18(1):180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Andrea E, Marzuillo C, De Vito C, et al. Which BRCA genetic testing programs are ready for implementation in health care? A systematic review of economic evaluations. Genet Med. 2016;18(12):1171–1180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortesi L, Rugo HS, Jackisch C. An overview of PARP inhibitors for the treatment of breast cancer. Target Oncol. 2021;16(3):255–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonarakis ES, Gomella LG, Petrylak DP. When and how to use PARP inhibitors in prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature with an update on on-going trials. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(5):594–611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PBAC 2016. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Codependent technogies. Available from: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/product-type-4-codependent-technologies.html
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez R, Havrilesky LJ, Myers ER, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing “PARP inhibitors-for-all” to the biomarker-directed use of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;159(2):483–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar