Cost-effectiveness of BRCA1 testing at time of obstetrical prenatal carrier screening for cancer prevention

被引:5
|
作者
Dioun, Shayan M. [1 ,2 ]
Perez, Luiza R. [3 ]
Prabhu, Malavika [4 ,5 ]
Brewer, Jesse T. [3 ]
Ahsan, Muhammad D. [3 ]
Hou, June Y. [1 ,2 ]
Sharaf, Ravi N. [2 ,3 ]
Wright, Jason D. [1 ,2 ]
Frey, Melissa K. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Coll Phys & Surg, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, New York, NY 10027 USA
[2] NewYork Presbyterian Hosp, New York, NY 10034 USA
[3] Weill Cornell Med, New York, NY USA
[4] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA USA
[5] Harvard Med Sch, Boston, MA USA
关键词
BRCA1; cancer prevention; cost-effectiveness; genetic testing; hereditary cancer syndromes; population-based screening; pre- natal carrier screening; OVARIAN-CANCER; BREAST-CANCER; RISK; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajog.2024.04.014
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Improved technologies paired with an increase in access to genetic testing have led to the availability of expanded carrier screening evaluating hundreds of disorders. Currently, most autosomal dominant mutations, such as BRCA1, are not included in expanded carrier assays. Screening pregnant or preconception reproductive-aged women for BRCA1 may present a unique opportunity to perform population-based screening for patients at a time when precancer screening, chemoprevention, and/or risk-reducing surgery may be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform clinical decision-making as to whether the universal incorporation of BRCA1 testing at the time of obstetrical prenatal carrier screening is cost-effective. STUDY DESIGN: A decision analysis and Markov model was created. The initial decision point in the model was BRCA1 testing at the time of expanded carrier screening. Model probabilities, cost, and utility values were derived from published literature. For BRCA1-positive patients, the model simulated breast cancer screening and risk-reducing surgical interventions. A cycle length of 1 year and a time horizon of 47 years were used to simulate the lifespan of patients. The setting was obstetrical clinics in the United States, and the participants were a theoretical cohort of 1,429,074 pregnant patients who annually underwent expanded carrier screening. RESULTS: Among our cohort, BRCA1 testing resulted in the identification of an additional 3716 BRCA1-positive patients, the prevention of 1394 breast and ovarian cancer cases, and 1084 fewer deaths. BRCA1 testing was a cost-effective strategy compared with no BRCA1 testing with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,001 per quality-adjusted life years. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis, we varied the prevalence of BRCA1 in the population from 0.00% to 20.00% and found that BRCA1 testing continued to be the cost-effective strategy until the prevalence rate was reduced to 0.16%. Multiple additional sensitivity analyses did not substantially affect the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The addition of BRCA1 testing to obstetrical prenatal carrier screening is a cost-effective management strategy to identify at- risk women at a time when cancer screening and preventive strategies can be effective. Despite the burden of additional genetic counseling, prenatal care represents a unique opportunity to implement population- based genetic testing.
引用
收藏
页码:330e1 / 330e14
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The cost-effectiveness of genotyping versus sequencing for prenatal cystic fibrosis carrier screening
    Avram, Carmen M.
    Dyer, Alexandria L.
    Shaffer, Brian L.
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2021, 41 (11) : 1449 - 1459
  • [22] Cost Effectiveness Analysis of BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing.
    Li, Q.
    Holland, M.
    Huston, A.
    Noyes, K.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2011, 71
  • [23] Which screening strategy should be offered to women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations? A simulation of comparative cost-effectiveness
    G H de Bock
    K M Vermeulen
    L Jansen
    J C Oosterwijk
    S Siesling
    M D Dorrius
    T Feenstra
    N Houssami
    M J W Greuter
    British Journal of Cancer, 2013, 108 : 1579 - 1586
  • [24] The Role of Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Cancer Prevention
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Armstrong, Katrina
    JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2014, 174 (07) : 1023 - 1024
  • [25] Which screening strategy should be offered to women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations? A simulation of comparative cost-effectiveness
    de Bock, G. H.
    Vermeulen, K. M.
    Jansen, L.
    Oosterwijk, J. C.
    Siesling, S.
    Dorrius, M. D.
    Feenstra, T.
    Houssami, N.
    Greuter, M. J. W.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2013, 108 (08) : 1579 - 1586
  • [26] Cost-Effectiveness of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Testing to Target PARP Inhibitor Use in Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer
    Secord, Angeles Alvarez
    Barnett, Jason Cory
    Ledermann, Jonathan A.
    Peterson, Bercedis L.
    Myers, Evan R.
    Havrilesky, Laura J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2013, 23 (05) : 846 - 852
  • [27] COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF HYSTERECTOMY AT THE TIME OF RISK-REDUCING BILATERAL SALPINGOOOPHORECTOMY FOR PATIENTS WITH BRCA1 MUTATIONS
    Dioun, Shayan
    Chen, Ling
    Gockley, Allison
    Melamed, Alexander
    St Clair, Caryn
    Hou, June
    Khoury-Collado, Fady
    Elkin, Elena
    Hershman, Dawn
    Wright, Jason
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2022, 32 : A39 - A39
  • [28] Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Genetic Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Genes: BRCA1 and BRCA2
    Kaldate, Rajesh
    Huston, Alissa
    McCoy, Heidi
    Cardeiro, Dawn
    Noyes, Katia
    BREAST JOURNAL, 2014, 20 (03): : 325 - 326
  • [29] Should women with a BRCA1/2 mutation aged 60 and older be offered intensified breast cancer screening? - A cost-effectiveness analysis
    Phi, Xuan-Anh
    Greuter, Marcel J. W.
    Obdeijn, Inge-Marie
    Oosterwijk, Jan C.
    Feenstra, Talitha L.
    Houssami, Nehmat
    de Bock, Geertruida H.
    BREAST, 2019, 45 : 82 - 88
  • [30] Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening for postpartum thyroiditis
    Bonds, DE
    Freedberg, KA
    JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH & GENDER-BASED MEDICINE, 2001, 10 (07): : 649 - 658