Cost-Effectiveness of Gene-Expression Profiling for Tumor-Site Origin

Abstract Objectives Gene-expression profiling (GEP) reliably supplements traditional clinicopathological information on the tissue of origin (TOO) in metastatic or poorly differentiated cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis of GEP TOO testing versus usual care was conducted from a US third-party pay...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Value in health 2013-01, Vol.16 (1), p.46-56
Hauptverfasser: Hornberger, John, MD, MS, Degtiar, Irina, BS, BA, Gutierrez, Hialy, BS, Shewade, Ashwini, MS, MSc, David Henner, W., PhD, MD, Becker, Shawn, MD, Varadachary, Gauri, MD, Raab, Stephen, MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Objectives Gene-expression profiling (GEP) reliably supplements traditional clinicopathological information on the tissue of origin (TOO) in metastatic or poorly differentiated cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis of GEP TOO testing versus usual care was conducted from a US third-party payer perspective. Methods Data on recommendation changes for chemotherapy, surgery, radiation therapy, blood tests, imaging investigations, and hospice care were obtained from a retrospective, observational study of patients whose physicians received GEP TOO test results. The effects of chemotherapy recommendation changes on survival were based on the results of trials cited in National Comprehensive Cancer Network and UpToDate guidelines. Drug and administration costs were based on average doses reported in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Other unit costs came from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee schedules. Quality-of-life weights were obtained from literature. Bootstrap analysis estimated sample variability; probabilistic sensitivity analysis addressed parameter uncertainty. Results Chemotherapy regimen recommendations consistent with guidelines for final tumor-site diagnoses increased significantly from 42% to 65% (net difference 23%; P
ISSN:1098-3015
1524-4733
DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.005