RESUMEN
Background and Objectives: The 21-gene assay (the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test) estimates the 10-year risk of distant recurrence in hormone receptor positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions. The cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay compared against standard clinical-pathological risk tools alone for HR+/HER2- early-stage breast cancer was assessed using an economic model informed by evidence from randomized controlled trials. Materials and Methods: A cost-effectiveness model consisted of a decision-tree to stratify patients according to their Recurrence Score (RS) results and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, followed by a Markov component to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes of the chosen treatment. Distributions of patients and distant recurrence probabilities were derived from the TAILORx (N0) and RxPONDER (N1) trials. The model was evaluated from a healthcare payer and societal perspective. Endocrine therapy and chemotherapy use were informed using clinical expert opinion to reflect US clinical practice and were combined with Medicare drug costs (2021) to estimate the cost of treatment. Societal costs included lost productivity and patient out-of-pocket costs obtained from literature. Results: The Oncotype DX test generated more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (N0: 0.25; N1: 0.08) at a lower cost (N0: -$13,395; N1: -$2526) compared to clinical-pathological risk alone from a societal cost perspective. The overall conclusions from the model did not change when considering a payer perspective. The main cost drivers were avoidance of distant recurrence for N0 (-$12,578), and the cost of adjuvant chemotherapy for N1 (-$2133). Lost productivity had a major impact in the societal perspective analysis (N0: -$4607; N1: -$1586). Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions based on the RS result led to more life year gains and lower healthcare costs (dominant) compared to using clinical-pathological risk factors alone among patients with HR+/HER2- N0 and N1 early-stage breast cancer.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test is used to estimate distant recurrence risk of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer and inform decisions on the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. A model-based budget impact analysis compared the Oncotype DX test in combination with clinical-pathological risk against using clinical-pathological risk alone for HR+/HER2- node-negative (N0) and node-positive (N1; 1-3 axillary lymph nodes) early-stage breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Test and medical costs associated with treatment of breast cancer were assessed through a US healthcare payer perspective. Distributions of patients by Recurrence Score result and distant recurrence probabilities with chemo-endocrine and endocrine therapy were derived from the TAILORx (N0) and RxPONDER (N1) trials. Changes in budget impact were evaluated over a 5-year horizon for a 1,000,000-member hypothetical health plan. RESULTS: With the Oncotype DX test, there was an incremental budget impact of $261,067 (per member per month (PMPM): $0.004), in the N0 population, and $56,143 (PMPM: $0.001) in the N1 population over the 5-year period. The largest budget impact reduction in the N0 population was attributed to reduced breast cancer recurrence costs (incremental: -$633,457, PMPM: -$0.011), while chemotherapy sparing reduced costs in the N1 population (incremental: -$94,884, PMPM: -$0.002). CONCLUSION: The clinical benefit of using the Oncotype DX test to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials. This analysis demonstrated that while using the Oncotype DX test to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions may slightly increase US healthcare costs over an initial 5-year time horizon (driven by a cost increase in the first year with cost savings reflected in remaining 4 years), there is significant scope for cost savings when assessing beyond this period due to avoided downstream costs of distant recurrence and long-term chemotherapy adverse events. PMPM costs also remain low across all populations examined, demonstrating a close-to-neutral budget impact.
