Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: An important challenge with the application of next-generation sequencing technology is the possibility of uncovering incidental genomic findings. A paucity of evidence on personal utility for incidental findings has hindered clinical guidelines. Our objective was to estimate personal utility for complex information derived from incidental genomic findings. METHODS: We used a discrete-choice experiment to evaluate participants' personal utility for the following attributes: disease penetrance, disease treatability, disease severity, carrier status and cost. Study participants were drawn from the Canadian public. We analyzed the data with a mixed logit model. RESULTS: In total, 1200 participants completed our questionnaire (available in English and French). Participants valued receiving information about high-penetrance disorders but expressed disutility for receiving information on low-penetrance disorders. The average willingness to pay was $445 (95% confidence interval [CI] $322-$567) to receive incidental findings in a scenario where clinicians returned information about high-penetrance, medically treatable disorders, but only 66% of participants (95% CI 63%-71%) indicated that they would choose to receive information in that scenario. On average, participants placed an important value ($725, 95% CI $600-$850) on having a choice about what type of findings they would receive, including receipt of information about high-penetrance, treatable disorders or receipt of information about high-penetrance disorders with or without available treatment. The predicted uptake of that scenario was 76% (95% CI 72%-79%). INTERPRETATION: Most participants valued receiving incidental findings, but personal utility depended on the type of finding, and not all participants wanted to receive incidental results, regardless of the potential health implications. These results indicate that to maximize benefit, participant-level preferences should inform the decision about whether to return incidental findings.

Sociodemographic characteristics of women with invasive cervical cancer in British Columbia, 2004-2013: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Although cancer screening has led to reductions in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer (ICC) across Canada, benefits of prevention efforts are not equitably distributed. This study investigated the sociodemographic characteristics of women with ICC in British Columbia compared with the general female population in the province. METHODS: In this descriptive study, data of individuals 18 years and older diagnosed with ICC between 2004 and 2013 were obtained from the BC Cancer Registry. Self-reported sociodemographic characteristics were derived from standardized health assessment forms (HAFs) completed upon admission in the BC Cancer Registry. Standardized ratios (SRs) were derived by dividing observed and age-adjusted expected counts by ethnicity or race, language, and marital, smoking and urban-rural status. Differences between observed and expected counts were tested using χ2 goodness-of-fit tests. General population data were derived from the 2006 Census, 2011 National Household Survey and 2011/12 Canadian Community Health Survey. RESULTS: Of 1705 total cases of ICC, 1315 were referred to BC Cancer (77.1%). Of those who were referred, 1215 (92.4%) completed HAFs. Among Indigenous women, more cases were observed (n = 85) than expected (n = 39; SR 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.15-2.18). Among visible minorities, observed cases (n = 320) were higher than expected (n = 253; 95% CI 1.26-1.26). Elevated SRs were observed among women who self-identified as Korean (SR 1.78, 95% CI 1.76-1.80), Japanese (SR 1.77, 95% CI 1.74-1.79) and Filipino (SR 1.60, 95% CI 1.58-1.62); lower SRs were observed among South Asian women (SR 0.63, 95% CI 0.62-0.63). Elevated SRs were observed among current smokers (SR 1.34, 95% CI 1.33-1.34) and women living in rural-hub (SR 1.29, 95% CI 1.28-1.31) and rural or remote (SR 2.62, 95% CI 2.61-2.64) areas; the SR was lower among married women (SR 0.90, 95% CI 0.90-0.90). INTERPRETATION: Women who self-identified as visible minorities, Indigenous, current smokers, nonmarried and from rural areas were overrepresented among women with ICC. Efforts are needed to address inequities to ensure all women benefit from cervical cancer prevention.

Erlotinib or best supportive care for third-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis.

UNLABELLED: Erlotinib has been approved as a third-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in British Columbia (BC). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare costs and effectiveness in patients who received third-line erlotinib to those in a historical patient cohort that would have been eligible had erlotinib been available. METHODS: In a population of patients who have been treated with drugs for advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS), progression-to-death survival (PTD) and probability of survival one year after end of second-line (1YS) were determined using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Costs were collected retrospectively from the perspective of the BC health care system. RESULTS: Incremental mean OS was 90 days (0.25 LYG), and incremental mean cost was $11,102 (CDN 2009), resulting in a mean ICER of $36,838/LYG. Univariate sensitivity analysis yielded ICERs ranging from $21,300 to $51,700/LYG. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that erlotinib may be an effective and cost-effective third-line treatment for advanced NSCLC compared to best supportive care.

Erlotinib or docetaxel for second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Erlotinib was recently approved in British Columbia (BC) as a second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted which compares costs and effectiveness in patients who received second-line erlotinib with those in patients who received docetaxel. METHODS: In a population of patients who have been treated with drugs (either erlotinib or docetaxel) for advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and probability of survival 1 year after beginning of second-line treatment (1YS) were determined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analysis, as well as χ test. Costs were collected retrospectively from the perspective of the BC health care system. RESULTS: Incremental mean OS was 1 day, and incremental mean cost was $2891. Neither costs nor effectiveness were statistically significantly different between groups. PFS and 1YS were also nonsignificantly different. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate multivariate confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib and docetaxel are statistically equivalent in terms of treatment cost and overall survival. As treatment practice patterns change, docetaxel may become more frequently prescribed. Therefore, the choice of whether to use erlotinib or docetaxel should be based on factors relating to patient preference rather than costs or effectiveness.