Oncologist-led BRCA counselling improves access to cancer genetic testing in middle-income Asian country, with no significant impact on psychosocial outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients with BRCA mutations is clinically important to inform on the potential response to treatment and for risk management of patients and their relatives. However, traditional referral routes may not meet clinical needs, and therefore, mainstreaming cancer genetics has been shown to be effective in some high-income and high health-literacy settings. To date, no study has reported on the feasibility of mainstreaming in low-income and middle-income settings, where the service considerations and health literacy could detrimentally affect the feasibility of mainstreaming. METHODS: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms. CONCLUSION: The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib maintenance therapy for BRCA mutation ovarian cancer in the public sector in Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian cancer is one of the most common cancer among women in Malaysia. Patients with ovarian cancer are often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Despite initial response to surgery and chemotherapy, most patients will experience a relapse. Olaparib has been reported have promising effects among BRCA mutated ovarian cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance therapy for BRCA ovarian cancer in Malaysia. METHODS: We developed a four-state partitioned survival model which compared treatment with olaparib versus routine surveillance (RS) from a Malaysian healthcare perspective. Mature overall survival (OS) data from the SOLO-1 study were used and extrapolated using parametric models. Medication costs and healthcare resource usage costs were derived from local inputs and publications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to explore uncertainties. RESULTS: In Malaysia, treating patients with olaparib was found to be more costly compared to RS, with an incremental cost of RM149,858 (USD 33,213). Patients treated with olaparib increased life years by 3.05 years and increased quality adjusted life years (QALY) by 2.76 (9.45 years vs 6.40 years; 7.62 vs 4.86 QALY). This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RM 49,159 (USD10,895) per life year gained and RM54,357 (USD 12,047) per QALY gained, respectively. ICERs were most sensitive to time horizon of treatment, discount rate for outcomes, cost of treatment and health state costs, but was above the RM53,770/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: The use of olaparib is currently not a cost-effective strategy compared to routine surveillance based upon the current price in Malaysia for people with ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation, despite the improvement in overall survival.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Two Different Two-Dose Human Papillomavirus Vaccines in Malaysia

Purpose: To comparatively evaluate the results of a 2-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme with the AS04-adjuvanted HPV16/18 vaccine (AS04-HPV-16/18v) or HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (4vHPVv), in addition to cervical cancer (CC) screening, in Malaysia. Methods: A lifetime Markov model replicating the natural history of HPV in 13-year-old girls was adapted to Malaysia to assess the impact of vaccination on pre-cancerous lesions, genital warts and CC cases, CC deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs from the perspective of the Malaysian Ministry of Health. Vaccine effectiveness was based on efficacy and HPV type distribution. Both vaccines were assumed to have equal efficacy against vaccine-type HPV but differed for protection against non-vaccine types. Vaccine price parity was used and health and cost outcomes were discounted at 3%/annum. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. Results: The model predicted that AS04-HPV-16/18v would result in 361 fewer CC cases and 115 fewer CC deaths than 4vHPVv, whereas 4vHPVv averted 4,241 cases of genital warts over the cohort's lifetime. Discounted total costs showed savings of 18.50 million Malaysian Ringgits and 246 QALYs in favour of AS04-HPV-16/18v. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the discount rate was the most influential variable for costs and QALYs, but AS04-HPV- 16/18v remained dominant throughout. A two-way sensitivity analysis to assess the longevity of cross-protection for both vaccines confirmed the base-case. Conclusions: In Malaysia, the use of AS04-HPV-16/18v, in addition to screening, was modelled to be dominant over 4vHPVv, with greater estimated CC benefits and lower costs.