Cost-Effectiveness of Unselected Multigene Germline and Somatic Genetic Testing for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Parallel panel germline and somatic genetic testing of all patients with ovarian cancer (OC) can identify more pathogenic variants (PVs) that would benefit from PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy, and allow for precision prevention in unaffected relatives with PVs. In this study, we estimate the cost-effectiveness and population impact of parallel panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy in the United Kingdom and the United States compared with clinical criteria/family history (FH)-based germline BRCA testing. We also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone. METHODS: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness modeling using data from 2,391 (UK: n=1,483; US: n=908) unselected, population-based patients with OC was used to compare lifetime costs and effects of panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all OC cases (with PARPi therapy) (strategy A) versus clinical criteria/FH-based germline BRCA testing (strategy B). Unaffected relatives with germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs identified through cascade testing underwent appropriate OC and breast cancer (BC) risk-reduction interventions. We also compared the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) versus strategy B. Unaffected relatives with PVs could undergo risk-reducing interventions. Lifetime horizon with payer/societal perspectives, along with probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses, are presented. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were compared with £30,000/QALY (UK) and $100,000/QALY (US) thresholds. OC incidence, BC incidence, and prevented deaths were estimated. RESULTS: Compared with clinical criteria/FH-based BRCA testing, BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 germline testing and BRCA1/BRCA2 somatic testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy had a UK ICER of £51,175/QALY (payer perspective) and £50,202/QALY (societal perspective) and a US ICER of $175,232/QALY (payer perspective) and $174,667/QALY (societal perspective), above UK/NICE and US cost-effectiveness thresholds in the base case. However, strategy A becomes cost-effective if PARPi costs decrease by 45% to 46% or if overall survival with PARPi reaches a hazard ratio of 0.28. Unselected panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) is cost-effective, with payer-perspective ICERs of £11,291/QALY or $68,808/QALY and societal-perspective ICERs of £6,923/QALY or $65,786/QALY. One year's testing could prevent 209 UK BC/OC cases and 192 deaths, and 560 US BC/OC cases and 460 deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Unselected panel germline and somatic BRCA testing can become cost-effective, with a 45% to 46% reduction in PARPi costs. Regarding germline testing, unselected panel germline testing is highly cost-effective and should replace BRCA testing alone.

What's in it for me?: A value assessment of gynecologic cancer clinical trials for Black women.

OBJECTIVE: Underrepresented groups may be dissuaded from clinical trial participation without perceived value. We therefore comprehensively assessed gynecologic cancer clinical trial protocols for the inclusion of items of value most important to Black individuals. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials in the US between Jan.1994 and Nov.2021. Pre-specified return of value (ROV) items were abstracted from each protocol. Inclusion proportions were calculated for each ROV item and temporal changes assessed with chi-square tests. Temporality of proportional trends was further assessed by slope and departure from linearity calculations. RESULTS: 279 gynecologic cancer clinical trials were included. Most commonly trials had first accrual in 2001-2007 (37%) and involved ovarian cancer (48%), phase II studies (53%), and chemotherapy (60%) or targeted therapy (34%). Trials often included ROV items in basic information (99%), medical record information (99%), and imaging (82%). 41% of trials included ROV items in biomarker testing, 20% genetic testing, and 20% in patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Over time, there were significant increases in the proportion of trials that included genetic (3% to 51%; p < 0.001) and biomarker testing (14 to 78%, p < 0.001). Information on lifestyle risk factors was rare (1%). No trials included ROV items in ancestry, how to connect with other participants, or remuneration. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic cancer clinical trials include few design elements that provide high value to Black individuals like lifestyle risk factors, ancestry, and remuneration. In any multi-pronged effort to improve diversity in clinical trial enrollment, inclusion of items valued by Black individuals should be considered.

Design of a study to implement population-based risk assessment for hereditary cancer genetic testing in primary care.

Identifying patients with high genetic risk for cancer has important clinical ramifications, but hereditary cancer risk is often not identified because of testing barriers at both the provider and patient level. It is unknown how to best implement appropriate genetic testing and follow-up care into an operating primary care clinic. Implementation studies to date have been conducted in high resourced facilities under optimal conditions, often not at the clinic level. This study aims to compare and evaluate two population-wide engagement strategies for identifying members of a primary care clinic's population with a family or personal history of cancer and offering high-risk individuals genetic testing for cancer susceptibility mutations. The two engagement strategies are: 1) point of care screening (POC), conducted when a patient is scheduled for an appointment and 2) direct patient engagement (DPE), where outreach provides the patient an opportunity to complete screening online on their own time. The study will identify changes, problems, and inefficiencies in clinical flow during and after the implementation of risk assessment and genomic testing for cancer risk across primary care clinics. It will also evaluate the effects of the two engagement strategies on patient, provider, and clinic leader outcomes, including perceptions of benefits, harms, and satisfaction with the engagement strategy and process of cancer risk assessment and genetic testing, across gender, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and genetic literacy divides. Finally, the study will evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of each engagement strategy.

MAGENTA (Making Genetic testing accessible): a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing online genetic education and telephone genetic counseling for hereditary cancer genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Studies have consistently indicated that the majority of individuals meeting the US Prevention Services Task Force guidelines for genetic testing have not had genetic counseling or testing. Despite increased availability and lower costs of multiplex cancer gene panels, there remains a gap in genetics services that has not been addressed by the current care delivery models. Lower cost of DNA sequencing with online patient-initiated ordering could increase test availability, but the ideal quantity and delivery method of patient education is not known. We hypothesized that online genetic education and testing with access to board certified genetic counselors could improve access to genetic testing while maintaining test quality and clinical utility. The MAGENTA (MAking GENetic Testing Accessible) trial is a nationwide randomized study designed to compare the effectiveness of online genetic education with pre- and post-test telephone genetic counseling to three potentially more accessible alternative approaches: online genetic education with optional telephone counseling, online genetic education with required pre-test telephone genetic counseling, and online genetic education with required post-test telephone genetic counseling. METHODS: 3000 women nationwide will undergo genetic testing for 19 hereditary cancer genes. This is a randomized four-arm non-inferiority study with equal randomization. The four study arms were selected to independently assess the delivery of genetic information both before and after genetic testing (pre-test and post-test) by either requiring telephone genetic counseling or providing only online education with optional telephone counseling. Patients have post-test telephone counseling when testing positive for a pathogenic inherited mutation in all four arms. Surveys measuring psychological, behavioral and cognitive state are completed online at baseline, 3 months, 12 months and 24 months post-results disclosure. The primary study outcome is cancer-risk distress at 3 months post-result disclosure. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the use of a genetic service model using online access and electronic education, while evaluating the need for personal pre- and post-test genetic counseling. Data from this study may lead to increased options for delivery of genetic testing and possibly increase access to genetic testing. Identifying more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility will allow targeted cancer prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02993068 (registered December 14, 2016).

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with a syndrome. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. The NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding risk management for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling and risk assessment and management for hereditary cancer syndromes. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer and are intended to assist with clinical and shared decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2015 NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year included multigene testing, risk management recommendations for less common genetic mutations, and salpingectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. The panel also discussed revisions to genetic testing criteria that take into account ovarian cancer histology and personal history of pancreatic cancer.

Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 1.2014.

During the past few years, several genetic aberrations that may contribute to increased risks for development of breast and/or ovarian cancers have been identified. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian focus specifically on the assessment of genetic mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2, TP53, and PTEN, and recommend approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these mutations. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines includes recommendations regarding diagnostic criteria and management of patients with Cowden Syndrome/PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome.