BRCA mutation testing for first-degree relatives of women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) have a 20% chance of carrying a BRCA1 or 2 mutation. Not all undergo genetic testing, and there is a large legacy group of untested patients. Their female first-degree relatives (FDR) may not qualify for testing unless they have specific ethnicity, or personal/family cancer history. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate risk-reducing strategies for these FDR who are ineligible for testing. METHODS: A Markov Monte Carlo simulation model estimated the costs and benefits of 3 strategies for female FDR of HGSC patients whose BRCA status is unknown: (1) no BRCA testing; (2) universal BRCA testing, followed by risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) for mutation carriers; (3) universal RRBSO, without BRCA testing. Effectiveness was estimated in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains over a 50-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around various parameters. RESULTS: Universal BRCA testing for female FDR of women with HGSC yielded a higher average QALY gain at acceptable cost compared to no BRCA testing, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7888 per QALY. Universal BRCA testing was more effective and less costly than universal RRBSO (19.20 QALYs vs. 18.52 QALYs, and $10,135 vs. $14,231, respectively). Results were stable over wide ranges of plausible costs and estimates. Compliance with hormone replacement therapy had to exceed 79.3% for universal RRBSO to be the most effective strategy. CONCLUSION: BRCA mutation testing should be offered to all female first-degree relatives of women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer when BRCA mutation status is unknown.

Costs and Benefits of Extended Endocrine Strategies for Premenopausal Breast Cancer.

Background: After completing 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer benefit from 5 more years of endocrine therapy, either with tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor (AI). For premenopausal women, ovarian ablation (OA) would be required before starting an AI (OA/AI). According to the SOFT/TEXT studies, OA/AI improves 5-year disease-free survival compared with tamoxifen alone, suggesting that OA/AI could be superior to tamoxifen as extended endocrine therapy. The long-term costs and consequences of premature menopause from OA are unknown, but could be estimated through a cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation model estimated the costs and benefits of 3 extended endocrine strategies in a hypothetical cohort of premenopausal women with ER-positive early breast cancer: (1) no further treatment; (2) tamoxifen for 5 years (extended tamoxifen); or (3) OA/AI for 5 years. Effectiveness was measured in years of life expectancy gain. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty surrounding various parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated the number of adverse events and deaths from each strategy in the US population over a 40-year period. Results: Extended tamoxifen yielded a higher average life expectancy gain than OA/AI (17.31 vs 17.06 years) at lower average cost ($3,550 vs $14,312). For 18,000 premenopausal ER-positive women, the simulation estimated 13,236, 12,557, and 11,338 deaths with no further treatment, extended tamoxifen, and OA/AI, respectively, but an additional 1,897 deaths from OA, for a total of 13,235 deaths associated with OA/AI. After 24.6 years of follow-up, more women are expected to die from OA/AI than extended tamoxifen. Conclusions: For premenopausal women with ER-positive cancer who have completed adjuvant tamoxifen, another 5 years of tamoxifen is the preferable extended endocrine strategy. The potential long-term health consequences of OA could affect overall survival when it precedes the use of an AI.

Long-term consequences of ovarian ablation for premenopausal breast cancer.

The TEXT and SOFT trials concluded that an aromatase inhibitor (AI) with ovarian ablation (OA) yields a higher 5-year disease-free survival than tamoxifen alone in premenopausal ER+ high-risk early breast cancer. However, the long-term health consequences and costs of OA, either by GnRH agonist or oophorectomy, have not been evaluated. The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing tamoxifen to OA with AI. Markov Monte Carlo simulation model estimated the costs and benefits of 3 endocrine strategies: (1) tamoxifen; (2) GnRH agonist with AI (GnRHa-AI); (3) bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with AI (BSO-AI). Effectiveness was measured in life expectancy gain (years), and costs were averaged over a lifetime (USD 2015). Adverse events and deaths from each strategy were modeled in the United States population over a time horizon of 40 years. For women without prior chemotherapy (low-risk), tamoxifen alone was more effective (18.03 years) and less costly ($1566) than GnRHa-AI (17.66 years, $93,692) or BSO-AI (17.63 years, $25,892). For those with prior chemotherapy (high-risk), BSO-AI was more costly but more effective (16.78 years, $25,368) than tamoxifen alone (16.55 years, $1523) with an ICER of $102,290, while GnRHa-AI yielded an ICER of $443,376. The simulation estimated 787 and 577 deaths attributable to OA among 9320 high-risk women after BSO-AI and GnRHa-AI, respectively. There may be a role for ovarian ablation in premenopausal women with ER+ high-risk early breast cancer; however, this analysis raises concerns about the long-term health consequences of ovarian ablation and the potential effects on overall survival.

Ovarian ablation for premenopausal breast cancer: A review of treatment considerations and the impact of premature menopause.

Historically, ovarian ablation (OA) was used as therapy for women with recurrent hormone-receptor-positive (HRP) premenopausal breast cancer. With the publication of the SOFT (Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial) and TEXT (Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial) randomized trials, there is considerable interest in OA as an adjuvant treatment, either in combination with tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor (AI). Thus, we have reviewed current guidelines and key studies on this important topic and have highlighted the relevant biological and pharmacological aspects of the various endocrine therapies. The results of two key randomized trials addressing the use and controversies of OA in premenopausal breast cancer are discussed and recent research emphasizing the detrimental consequences of premature menopause and the cost-effectiveness of OA is presented. In low-risk patients with HRP premenopausal breast cancer, OA is not beneficial and tamoxifen remains the anti-hormone treatment of choice. In high-risk women (previous chemotherapy or women younger than 35), OA in combination with AI is more effective but is arguably not cost-effective, particularly when OA is achieved medically using a GnRH agonist/antagonist. Compared to tamoxifen alone, the SOFT trial showed a 4.5-7.7% reduction in breast cancer relapse using OA (in combination with either tamoxifen or AI) in high-risk women, though the 5-year overall survival benefit was limited (1.4-3.6%). Premature menopause is associated with long-term mortality risks and women often experience significant menopausal symptoms that impact on quality of life. These considerations should play a role in the treatment selection of those patients who may benefit from adjuvant OA.

Prophylactic salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy as an alternative for BRCA mutation carriers.

OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is advised for women with BRCA mutations, but there are adverse consequences of premature menopause. The majority of BRCA-associated ovarian cancers appear to arise in the fallopian tube; therefore, salpingectomy may be an alternative to bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. We compared the costs and benefits of salpingectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy among BRCA mutation carriers. METHODS: We developed a Markov Monte Carlo simulation model to compare three strategies for risk reduction in women with BRCA mutations: 1) bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; 2) bilateral salpingectomy; and 3) bilateral salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy. Net health benefits were measured in years-of-life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-year expectancy, and the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The model estimated the number of future breast and ovarian cancers and cardiovascular deaths attributed to premature menopause with each strategy. RESULTS: Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with the lowest cost and highest life expectancy compared with the other two strategies. When quality-of-life measures were included, salpingectomy followed by delayed oophorectomy yielded the highest quality-adjusted life expectancy with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $37,805 and $89,680 per quality-adjusted life-year for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively, relative to salpingectomy alone. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy yielded the lowest number of future breast and ovarian cancers compared with the other two strategies. CONCLUSION: Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy offers the greatest risk reduction for breast and ovarian cancer among BRCA mutation carriers. However, when considering quality-adjusted life expectancy, bilateral salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy is a cost-effective strategy and may be an acceptable alternative for those unwilling to undergo bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.