Berdunov Vladislav, Cuyún-Carter Gebra, Gil-Rojas Yaneth, Russell Christy, Campbell Sara, Racz Jennifer, Abdou Yara
Putnam, 22-24 Torrington Place, Fitzrovia, London, WC1E 7HJ, UK.
Exact Sciences, Madison, WI, USA.
Oncol Ther. 2025 Mar;13(1):99-114. doi: 10.1007/s40487-024-00312-4. Epub 2024 Nov 22.
Clinicopathologic and patient factors, such as tumor grade, size, age, and menopausal status, provide limited prognostic and predictive information in hormone receptor positive (HR +), human epidermal growth receptor 2 negative (HER2-), node-negative early-stage breast cancer, leading to potential over- or under-treatment. Multigene expression profile tests used in clinical practice in the USA, including the 21-gene assay, 70-gene assay, 12-gene assay, and 50-gene assay, offer prognostic information beyond traditional clinicopathologic features to improve treatment decisions. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these four multigene assays compared with clinicopathologic risk assessment alone.
A decision tree categorized hypothetical patients with HR + /HER2- early-stage invasive breast cancer according to clinical and genomic risk, and integrated clinical expert insights for chemotherapy allocation with literature inputs. A Markov model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes of chemotherapy decisions over a patient's lifetime. The probability of distant breast cancer recurrence was derived from TAILORx (21-gene assay), MINDACT (70-gene assay), and TransATAC (12-gene assay, 50-gene assay) studies. Costs were calculated from a US societal perspective in 2021 US dollars, considering healthcare costs, lost productivity, and patient out-of-pocket expenses.
The 21-gene assay and 50-gene assay were less costly ( -$12,189 and -$2410, respectively) and more effective [0.23 and 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively] compared with clinicopathologic risk alone. Similarly, the 70-gene assay and 12-gene assay are also cost-effective alternatives [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): 27,760 and 7942, respectively].
All four multigene assays were cost-effective from a societal perspective, offering low net lifetime costs or savings with improved outcomes compared with clinicopathologic risk assessment alone. These assays can help refine treatment decisions by providing prognostic risk estimates. In the case of the 21-gene assay, it can also predict chemotherapy benefit leading to the highest lifetime cost savings and greatest QALY gain.
临床病理因素和患者因素,如肿瘤分级、大小、年龄和绝经状态,在激素受体阳性(HR +)、人表皮生长因子受体2阴性(HER2 -)、淋巴结阴性的早期乳腺癌中提供的预后和预测信息有限,可能导致过度治疗或治疗不足。在美国临床实践中使用的多基因表达谱检测,包括21基因检测、70基因检测、12基因检测和50基因检测,提供了超越传统临床病理特征的预后信息,以改善治疗决策。本研究旨在评估这四种多基因检测与单独的临床病理风险评估相比的成本效益。
一个决策树根据临床和基因组风险对假设的HR + /HER2 - 早期浸润性乳腺癌患者进行分类,并结合临床专家对化疗分配的见解和文献数据。一个马尔可夫模型模拟了患者一生中化疗决策的终身成本和结果。远处乳腺癌复发的概率来自TAILORx(21基因检测)、MINDACT(70基因检测)和TransATAC(12基因检测、50基因检测)研究。成本从美国社会角度以2021年美元计算,考虑了医疗保健成本、生产力损失和患者自付费用。
与单独的临床病理风险相比,21基因检测和50基因检测成本更低(分别为 - 12,189美元和 - 2410美元)且更有效[分别为0.23和0.07质量调整生命年(QALY)]。同样,70基因检测和12基因检测也是具有成本效益的选择[增量成本效益比(ICER):分别为27,760和7942]。
从社会角度来看,所有四种多基因检测都具有成本效益,与单独的临床病理风险评估相比,提供了较低的终身净成本或节省成本,且结果有所改善。这些检测可以通过提供预后风险估计来帮助优化治疗决策。就21基因检测而言,它还可以预测化疗获益,从而带来最高的终身成本节省和最大的QALY增益。