Health economic impact of a biopsy-based cell cycle gene expression assay in localized prostate cancer.

Background: Prior studies have established that broader incorporation of active surveillance, guided by additional prognostic tools, may mitigate the growing economic burden of localized prostate cancer in the USA. This study sought to further explore the potential of a particular gene expression-based prognostic tool to address this unmet need. Materials & methods: A deterministic, decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the economic impact of the Prolaris® test on a US commercial health plan. Results & conclusion: When adopted in patients classified by the American Urological Association as low or intermediate risk, the assay was projected to reduce costs by $1894 and $2129 per patient over 3 and 10 years, respectively, largely through the increased use of active surveillance.

Economic burden of illness associated with localized prostate cancer in the United States.

Aim: Prior studies have established the economic burden of prostate cancer on society. However, changes to screening, novel therapies and increased use of active surveillance (AS) create a need for an updated analysis. Methods: A deterministic, decision-analytic model was developed to estimate medical costs associated with localized prostate cancer over 10 years. Results: 10-year costs averaged $45,957, $99,445 and $188,928 for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. For low-risk patients, AS 10-year costs averaged $33,912/patient, whereas definitive treatment averaged $49,667/patient. Despite higher failure rates in intermediate-risk patients, AS remained less costly than definitive treatment, with 10-year costs averaging $90,614/patient and $99,394/patient, respectively. Conclusion: Broader incorporation of AS, guided by additional prognostic tools, may mitigate this growing economic burden.

Health economic analysis of Breast Cancer Index in patients with ER+, LN- breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Breast Cancer Index (BCI) is a novel gene expression-based test for patients with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), lymph node negative (LN-) breast cancer that predicts risk of recurrence over 10 years, and also specifically predicts risk of late (≥5 y) recurrences and likelihood of benefit from extended (≥5 y) endocrine therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate cost utility of BCI from a US third-party payer perspective. STUDY DESIGN: Two fact-based economic models were developed to project the cost and effectiveness of BCI in a hypothetical population of patients with ER+, LN- breast cancer compared with standard clinicopathologic diagnostic modalities. METHODS: Costs associated with adjuvant chemotherapy, toxicity, followup, endocrine therapy, and recurrence were modeled over 10 years. The models examined cost utility compared with standard practice when used at diagnosis and in patients disease-free at 5 years post diagnosis. RESULTS: Use of BCI was projected to be cost saving in both models. In the newly diagnosed population, net cost savings were $3803 per patient tested. In the 5 years post diagnosis population, BCI was projected to yield a net cost savings of $1803 per patient tested. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that BCI was cost saving across a wide range of clinically relevant input assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: BCI was projected to be cost saving when used either at diagnosis or at 5 years post diagnosis. Cost savings are achieved through projected impact on adjuvant chemotherapy use, extended endocrine therapy use, and endocrine therapy compliance. These findings require validation in additional cohorts, including studies of real-world clinical practice.

Budget impact analysis of a novel gene expression assay for the diagnosis of malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Traditional pathology techniques alone can be insufficient to reliably distinguish between malignant melanoma, dysplastic nevi, and benign nevi in biopsies of suspicious pigmented lesions. Numerous studies have shown high rates of ambiguity when assessing such samples. A novel gene expression assay has been developed to objectively differentiate malignant melanoma from benign nevi. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the economic impact of the gene expression assay on a US commercial health plan. METHODS: The clinical paradigm of care was modeled for a hypothetical cohort of patients with suspicious pigmented lesions that are difficult-to-diagnose. Costs were assigned to each unit of care provided based on 2013 Medicare fee-for-service rates. Patients were followed for 10 years and were modeled to progress according to the natural history of their disease. The total cost of care was calculated for two scenarios: a Reference Scenario, representing current clinical practice, and a Test Scenario, in which each lesion was tested with the gene expression assay and diagnosed. Total cost of care was compared between the two scenarios to determine overall budget impact. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The gene expression assay reduces costs by $1268 per patient tested over 10 years, a decrease of 8.3%, after accounting for the cost of the assay. For a health plan with 10 million members, this would translate to over $8 million in savings. The largest portion of this saving comes from reducing the number of missed melanomas, which would otherwise progress to advanced disease. In sensitivity analyses, no single model input changed within a reasonable range of values caused the model to show that the assay was not cost-saving. CONCLUSION: In addition to improving the diagnosis of melanoma, this gene expression assay would likely reduce costs for health plans that choose to cover it.

Breaking a vicious cycle.

Despite prodigious advances in tumor biology research, few tumor-biomarker tests have been adopted as standard clinical practice. This lack of reliable tests stems from a vicious cycle of undervaluation, resulting from inconsistent regulatory standards and reimbursement, as well as insufficient investment in research and development, scrutiny of biomarker publications by journals, and evidence of analytical validity and clinical utility. We offer recommendations designed to serve as a roadmap to break this vicious cycle and call for a national dialogue, as changes in regulation, reimbursement, investment, peer review, and guidelines development require the participation of all stakeholders.