Hall Peter S, Smith Alison, Hulme Claire, Vargas-Palacios Armando, Makris Andreas, Hughes-Davies Luke, Dunn Janet A, Bartlett John M S, Cameron David A, Marshall Andrea, Campbell Amy, Macpherson Iain R, Francis Adele, Earl Helena, Morgan Adrienne, Stein Robert C, McCabe Christopher
Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Value Health. 2017 Dec;20(10):1311-1318. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.021. Epub 2017 Jul 11.
Precision medicine is heralded as offering more effective treatments to smaller targeted patient populations. In breast cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is standard for patients considered as high-risk after surgery. Molecular tests may identify patients who can safely avoid chemotherapy.
To use economic analysis before a large-scale clinical trial of molecular testing to confirm the value of the trial and help prioritize between candidate tests as randomized comparators.
Women with surgically treated breast cancer (estrogen receptor-positive and lymph node-positive or tumor size ≥30 mm) were randomized to standard care (chemotherapy for all) or test-directed care using Oncotype DX™. Additional testing was undertaken using alternative tests: MammaPrint, PAM-50 (Prosigna), MammaTyper, IHC4, and IHC4-AQUA™ (NexCourse Breast™). A probabilistic decision model assessed the cost-effectiveness of all tests from a UK perspective. Value of information analysis determined the most efficient publicly funded ongoing trial design in the United Kingdom.
There was an 86% probability of molecular testing being cost-effective, with most tests producing cost savings (range -£1892 to £195) and quality-adjusted life-year gains (range 0.17-0.20). There were only small differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years between tests. Uncertainty was driven by long-term outcomes. Value of information demonstrated value of further research into all tests, with Prosigna currently being the highest priority for further research.
Molecular tests are likely to be cost-effective, but an optimal test is yet to be identified. Health economics modeling to inform the design of a randomized controlled trial looking at diagnostic technology has been demonstrated to be feasible as a method for improving research efficiency.
精准医学被誉为可为规模较小的特定目标患者群体提供更有效的治疗方法。在乳腺癌治疗中,辅助化疗是术后被视为高危患者的标准治疗方案。分子检测可识别出能够安全避免化疗的患者。
在分子检测的大规模临床试验之前进行经济分析,以确认该试验的价值,并帮助在作为随机对照的候选检测方法之间确定优先顺序。
对接受手术治疗的乳腺癌患者(雌激素受体阳性且淋巴结阳性或肿瘤大小≥30毫米)进行随机分组,一组接受标准治疗(全部进行化疗),另一组使用Oncotype DX™进行检测指导治疗。还使用其他检测方法进行了额外检测:MammaPrint、PAM-50(Prosigna)、MammaTyper、IHC4和IHC4-AQUA™(NexCourse Breast™)。一个概率决策模型从英国的角度评估了所有检测方法的成本效益。信息价值分析确定了英国最有效的由公共资金资助的正在进行的试验设计。
分子检测具有成本效益的概率为86%,大多数检测方法都能节省成本(范围为-1892英镑至195英镑)并带来质量调整生命年的增加(范围为0.17至0.20)。各检测方法在成本和质量调整生命年方面仅有微小差异。不确定性由长期结果驱动。信息价值表明对所有检测方法进行进一步研究具有价值,目前Prosigna是进一步研究的最高优先事项。
分子检测可能具有成本效益,但尚未确定最佳检测方法。已证明通过健康经济学建模为研究诊断技术的随机对照试验设计提供信息作为提高研究效率的方法是可行的。