Budget impact of the Oncotype DX® test compared to other gene expression tests in patients with early breast cancer in Germany.

PURPOSE: Gene expression tests can inform decisions on whether to recommend chemotherapy for patients with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer. The goal of this analysis was to compare treatment costs by an expanded budget impact model of reimbursed gene expression tests in Germany. METHODS: A cost comparison was constructed as an expanded budget impact model to calculate average total costs per patient covered by public health insurance. Based on the strong clinical evidence from the prospective randomized controlled trial TAILORx including more than 10,000 patients with HR+ and node negative breast cancer, the assumption was made that the Oncotype DX® test accurately predicts chemotherapy benefit and clinical outcomes. For the further reimbursed tests (EndoPredict®, MammaPrint®, Prosigna®), results from comparative studies - aligned with prognosis studies - as analyzed in IQWiG Rapid Report D19-01 were applied. RESULTS: The use of the Oncotype DX test led to estimated average savings per patient of 2,500 € vs. EndoPredict, 1,936 € vs. MammaPrint, and 649 € vs. Prosigna. Savings were achieved by reduction of unnecessary chemotherapy use, a consequence of false-positive test results (EndoPredict 73%, MammaPrint 42%, Prosigna 20%). False-negative test results (EndoPredict 5%, MammaPrint 22%, Prosigna 49%) reduced necessary chemotherapies, which initially results in cost savings, but may lead to increased long-term costs associated with management of progressive disease. CONCLUSION: The results from this model suggest that the use of the Oncotype DX test reduces the cost of health care in Germany making it the most cost effective test compared to the further tests.

[Economic Short-Term Cost Model for Stereotactic Radiotherapy of Neovascular AMD]. / Ökonomisches Kostenmodell zur Radiotherapie der neovaskulären AMD.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic radiation therapy (Oraya, OT) is available as a second line therapy for patients who, despite intensive anti-VEGF therapy for neovascular AMD, do not show an improvement in CNV. As OT is expensive (5,308 €), the short term economics for starting this therapy were investigated. METHODS: A short-term cost model was set up in MS Excel with a two year time horizon. On the basis of the data of the randomised, controlled INTREPID pivotal trial and current treatment practice in Germany, the costs were compared of conventional anti-VEGF therapy, with or without a single OT treatment. Patients with an active lesion after initial anti-VEGF therapy and a maximum lesion diameter ≤ 4 mm were included. Modeled cost components/aspects were direct savings from injection number, control follow-up examinations and aids, as well as anti-VEGF switches. Costs for Germany were employed and a univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to address the existing uncertainty. RESULTS: For the patients with a maximum AMD lesion diameter ≤ 4 mm and a macula volume > 7.4 mm(3), the INTREPID trial showed a mean reduction of 3.68 intravitreal injections for 16 Gy radiation versus sham over a time period of 2 years. These 3.68 IVM result in ~ 4,500 € direct cost savings. Moreover, due to the higher response rate with 16 Gy radiation, the number of follow-up visits and aids can be reduced, which results in savings between 207 € and 1,224 € over 2 years. After radiation, fewer anti-VEGF switches for low or non-responders are expected, which is modeled to result in ~ 1.7 fewer injections over 2 years. Due to overall fewer injections, fewer endophthalmitis cases would be expected. However, endophthalmitis and microvascular abnormalities, which can be observed in a few cases, are associated with low or non-quantifiable costs in this cost-cost comparison model. In summary, cost reductions of between 6,400 and 8,500 € are predicted in the model over two years, which have to be compared to the costs of a single application of OT. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term economic analysis shows that anti-VEGF therapy combined with OT results in savings above the costs for OT itself over a 2 year time horizon. Overall, the approach gives potential cost reductions, if the appropriate indication is followed.