Is BRCA Mutation Testing Cost Effective for Early Stage Breast Cancer Patients Compared to Routine Clinical Surveillance? The Case of an Upper Middle-Income Country in Asia

  • Ka Keat Lim
  • Sook Yee Yoon
  • Nur Aishah Mohd Taib
  • Fatiha Hana Shabaruddin
  • Maznah Dahlui
  • Yin Ling Woo
  • Meow Keong Thong
  • Soo Hwang Teo
  • Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
Original Research Article
First Online:

Abstract

Objective

Previous studies showed that offering BRCA mutation testing to population subgroups at high risk of harbouring the mutation may be cost effective, yet no evidence is available for low- or middle-income countries (LMIC) and in Asia. We estimated the cost effectiveness of BRCA mutation testing in early-stage breast cancer patients with high pre-test probability of harbouring the mutation in Malaysia, an LMIC in Asia.

Methods

We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued through BRCA mutation testing or routine clinical surveillance (RCS) for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 early-stage breast cancer patients aged 40 years. In the model, patients would decide whether to accept testing and to undertake risk-reducing mastectomy, oophorectomy, tamoxifen, combinations or neither. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the health system perspective. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

In the base case, testing generated 11.2 QALYs over the lifetime and cost US$4815 per patient whereas RCS generated 11.1 QALYs and cost US$4574 per patient. The ICER of US$2725/QALY was below the cost-effective thresholds. The ICER was sensitive to the discounting of cost, cost of BRCA mutation testing and utility of being risk-free, but the ICERs remained below the thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a threshold of US$9500/QALY, 99.9% of simulations favoured BRCA mutation testing over RCS.

Conclusions

Offering BRCA mutation testing to early-stage breast cancer patients identified using a locally-validated risk-assessment tool may be cost effective compared to RCS in Malaysia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Data Availability Statement

All data used in the analyses are referenced and described in the text and listed in Supplementary File 2. All other information is available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.

Author Contributions

SYY, SHT and NC conceptualized the research idea; KKL and NC formulated the research questions, and designed and performed the analysis; NAMT, YLW and MKT assisted in model building by providing their clinical inputs, FHS and MD provided secondary data on resource consumption, and assisted in data analysis and interpretation of findings. KKL prepared the first draft of the manuscript. All authors were responsible for critically revising the manuscript and agreed on the final content before submission.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No funding was involved for this study.

Human or animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

All authors (KKL, SYY, NAMT, FHS, MD, YLW, MKT, SHT, NC) declare no conflicts of interest related to BRCA mutation testing.

Supplementary material

40258_2018_384_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)
40258_2018_384_MOESM2_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 27 kb)
40258_2018_384_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (94 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 95 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Valachis A, Nearchou AD, Lind P. Surgical management of breast cancer in BRCA-mutation carriers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144(3):443–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mavaddat N, et al. Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(11):812–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ingham SL, et al. Ovarian cancer among 8,005 women from a breast cancer family history clinic: no increased risk of invasive ovarian cancer in families testing negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Med Genet. 2013;50(6):368–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guo F, et al. Use of BRCA Mutation Test in the US, 2004–2014. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(6):702–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evans DGR, et al. A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO. J Med Genet. 2004;41(6):474.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Andrea E, et al. Which BRCA genetic testing programs are ready for implementation in health care? A systematic review of economic evaluations. Genet Med. 2016;18(12):1171–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oosterhoff M, van der Maas ME, Steuten LMG. A systematic review of health economic evaluations of diagnostic biomarkers. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):51–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tengs TO, Berry DA. The cost effectiveness of testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. Dis Manag Clin Outcomes. 2000;1:15–24.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manchanda R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population screening for BRCA mutations in Ashkenazi jewish women compared with family history-based testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(1):380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holland ML, Huston A, Noyes K. Cost-effectiveness of testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes. Value Health. 2009;12(2):207–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Antoniou AC, et al. Predicting the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: validation of BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, Myriad and the Manchester scoring system using data from UK genetics clinics. J Med Genet. 2008;45(7):425–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ministry of Health Malaysia and Academy of Medicines Malaysia. Management of Breast Cancer, 2nd Ed. Ministry of Health Malaysia: Putrajaya; 2010. http://www.moh.gov.my/penerbitan/CPG2017/6915.pdf.
  13. 13.
    Thirthagiri E, et al. Evaluation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and risk-prediction models in a typical Asian country (Malaysia) with a relatively low incidence of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoon SY, et al. Genetic counseling for patients and families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in a developing Asian country: an observational descriptive study. Fam Cancer. 2011;10(2):199–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cancer Research Malaysia. Breast Cancer Current Research and Programme: MyBrCa and MyMammo. 2016 05/06/2016]. http://www.cancerresearch.my/our-research/breast-cancer-research/more-than-a-mammo-programme/. Accessed 20 June 2017.
  16. 16.
    Husereau D et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ Br Med J 2013;346:f1049.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwon JS, et al. Expanding the criteria for BRCA mutation testing in breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(27):4214–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toh GT, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in Malaysian women with early-onset breast cancer without a family history. PLoS One. 2008;3(4):e2024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allemani C, et al. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). The Lancet. 2015;385(9972):977–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tan X-Y, et al. Assessment of preference for hormonal treatment-related health states among patients with breast cancer. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;3:27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Havrilesky LJ, et al. Determination of quality of life-related utilities for health states relevant to ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(2):216–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier J. Health-state utility values in breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(5):553–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grann VR, et al. The quality of life associated with prophylactic treatments for women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Cancer J Sci Am. 1999;5(5):283–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cappelli M, et al. Measuring women’s preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(7):595–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Metcalfe KA, et al. The risk of ovarian cancer after breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;96(1):222–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Metcalfe K, et al. Predictors of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer. 2011;104(9):1384–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Metcalfe K, et al. Risk of ipsilateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127(1):287–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nelson HD, et al. Genetic risk assessment and brca mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the US preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(5):362–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Department of Statistics Malaysia. Malaysia economics statistics—time series 2015. 2015 30/12/2015 10/05/2016]. https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column/ctimeseries&menu_id=NHJlaGc2Rlg4ZXlGTjh1SU1kaWY5UT09. Accessed 20 June 2017.
  30. 30.
    Central Bank of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur US$/MYR Reference Rate. 2016 20/06/2017]. http://www.bnm.gov.my/index.php?ch=statistic&pg=kualalumpurusdmyrreferencerate. Accessed 20 June 2017.
  31. 31.
    Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia. Fees (Medical Cost of Services) Order 2014. Putrajaya: Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia; 2014.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Clinical Research Centre (CRC). National Healthcare Establishment and Workforce Statistics (Hospital) 2011. Kuala Lumpur: Clinical Research Centre, Ministry of Health Malaysia; 2013.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lim GCC, et al. Closing the global cancer divide—performance of breast cancer care services in a middle income developing country. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:212.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ministry of Health Malaysia. Pharmacoeconomic guideline for Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Pharmaceutical Services Division; 2012.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hutubessy R, et al. Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector. Cost Effect Resour Alloc C/E. 2003;1:8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section. Establishing a cost-effectiveness threshold value for health technologies Newsletter, Vol 17. Putrajaya: Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section (MaHTAS) Medical Development Division Ministry of Health Malaysia; 2015.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shafie AA, et al. Exploring the willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year in the state of Penang, Malaysia. ClinicoEcono Outcomes Res CEOR. 2014;6:473–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lim YW, et al. PHP201—Determination of cost-effectiveness threshold for Malaysia. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Chapter 4: making decision model probabilistic. In: Grey A, Briggs A, editors. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Heimdal K, Maehle L, Moller P. Costs and benefits of diagnosing familial breast cancer. Dis Mark. 1999;15(1–3):167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Balmana J, et al. Genetic counseling program in familial breast cancer: analysis of its effectiveness, cost and cost-effectiveness ratio. Int J Cancer. 2004;112(4):647–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kwon JS, et al. Preventing future cancers by testing women with ovarian cancer for BRCA mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):675–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012: Malaysia. 2012 20/12/2016]. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx. Accessed 20 June 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Systems and Services ResearchDuke NUS Medical SchoolSingaporeRepublic of Singapore
  2. 2.Healthcare Statistics UnitNational Clinical Research CentreKuala LumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.Cancer Research MalaysiaSubang JayaMalaysia
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  5. 5.Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  6. 6.Julius Centre, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  7. 7.Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  8. 8.Department of Paediatrics, Faculty Of MedicineUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  9. 9.Center of Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research (CPOR), Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesNaresuan UniversityMuangThailand
  10. 10.School of PharmacyMonash University MalaysiaSubang JayaMalaysia
  11. 11.Asian Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Population, Implementation and Clinical Outcomes (PICO), Health and Well-being Cluster, Global Asia in the 21st Century (GA21) Platform Monash University MalaysiaSubang JayaMalaysia
  12. 12.School of PharmacyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations