• Ranjit Manchanda, Rosa Legood, Matthew Burnell, Alistair McGuire, Maria Raikou, Kelly Loggenberg, Jane Wardle, Saskia Sanderson, Sue Gessler, Lucy Side, Nyala Balogun, Rakshit Desai, Ajith Kumar, Huw Dorkins, Yvonne Wallis, Cyril Chapman, Rohan Taylor, Chris Jacobs, Ian Tomlinson, Uziel Beller, Usha Menon, and Ian Jacobs.
• Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London, UK, (RM); Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK (RM, MB, KL, SG, LS, NB, RD, UM, IJ); Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK (RL); Department of Health Economics, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, UK (AM, MR); Behavioural Sciences Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK (JW); Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY (SS); Department of Clinical Genetics, North East Thames Regional Genetics Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK (AK); NW Thames Regional Genetics Service, Kennedy Galton Centre, Middlesex, UK (HD); West Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK (YW); Department of Clinical Genetics, West Midlands Regional Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK (CC); South West Thames Molecular Genetics Diagnostic Laboratory, St George's University of London, London, UK (RT); Department of Clinical Genetics, Guy's Hospital, London, UK (CJ); Welcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Headington Oxford, UK (IT); Department Gynaecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel (UB); School of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences & Manchester Academic Health Science Center, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK (IJ).
• J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2015 Jan 1; 107 (1): 380.

BackgroundPopulation-based testing for BRCA1/2 mutations detects the high proportion of carriers not identified by cancer family history (FH)-based testing. We compared the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing with the standard FH-based approach in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) women.MethodsA decision-analytic model was developed to compare lifetime costs and effects amongst AJ women in the UK of BRCA founder-mutation testing amongst: 1) all women in the population age 30 years or older and 2) just those with a strong FH (≥10% mutation risk). The model assumes that BRCA carriers are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and annual MRI/mammography screening or risk-reducing mastectomy. Model probabilities utilize the Genetic Cancer Prediction through Population Screening trial/published literature to estimate total costs, effects in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cancer incidence, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and population impact. Costs are reported at 2010 prices. Costs/outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. We used deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to evaluate model uncertainty.ResultsCompared with FH-based testing, population-screening saved 0.090 more life-years and 0.101 more QALYs resulting in 33 days' gain in life expectancy. Population screening was found to be cost saving with a baseline-discounted ICER of -£2079/QALY. Population-based screening lowered ovarian and breast cancer incidence by 0.34% and 0.62%. Assuming 71% testing uptake, this leads to 276 fewer ovarian and 508 fewer breast cancer cases. Overall, reduction in treatment costs led to a discounted cost savings of £3.7 million. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and 94% of simulations on PSA (threshold £20000) indicated that population screening is cost-effective, compared with current NHS policy.ConclusionPopulation-based screening for BRCA mutations is highly cost-effective compared with an FH-based approach in AJ women age 30 years and older.© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press.

34 keywords...

hide…