Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38334999›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Cost-Effectiveness of Gene-Specific Prevention Strategies for Ovarian and Breast Cancer.

Xia Wei, Li Sun, Eric Slade, Caitlin T Fierheller, Samuel Oxley, Ashwin Kalra, Jacqueline Sia, Michail Sideris, W Glenn McCluggage, Nathan Bromham and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of ovarian cancer preventive strategies for women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants: the role of surveillance.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Role of solute carrier transporters in ovarian cancer (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2025
    Review
  10. Cost-effectiveness analysis of population-basedFrontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Online Provision ofCancers · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Xia WeiDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Li SunDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Eric SladeNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom.
Caitlin T FierhellerWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Samuel OxleyWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Ashwin KalraWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Jacqueline SiaWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Michail SiderisWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
W Glenn McCluggageDepartment of Pathology, Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Nathan BromhamNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom.
Katharina DworzynskiNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom.
Adam N RosenthalDepartment of Gynaecology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation trust, London, United Kingdom.
Adam BrentnallWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Stephen DuffyWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
D Gareth EvansManchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Li YangSchool of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Rosa LegoodDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Ranjit ManchandaDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Queen Mary University of London · GBNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBBelfast Health and Social Care Trust · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBPeking University · CNRoyal London Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) confer an increased ovarian cancer (OC) risk, with BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D PVs also conferring an elevated breast cancer (BC) risk. Risk-reducing surgery, medical prevention, and BC surveillance offer the opportunity to prevent cancers and deaths, but their cost-effectiveness for individual CSGs remains poorly addressed. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for OC and BC among individuals carrying PVs in the previously listed CSGs. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and, where relevant, risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) compared with nonsurgical interventions (including BC surveillance and medical prevention for increased BC risk) from December 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023. The analysis took a UK payer perspective with a lifetime horizon. The simulated cohort consisted of women aged 30 years who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. Appropriate sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. Exposures: CSG-specific interventions, including RRSO at age 35 to 50 years with or without BC surveillance and medical prevention (ie, tamoxifen or anastrozole) from age 30 or 40 years, RRM at age 30 to 40 years, both RRSO and RRM, BC surveillance and medical prevention, or no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. OC and BC cases and deaths were estimated. Results: In the simulated cohort of women aged 30 years with no cancer, undergoing both RRSO and RRM was most cost-effective for individuals carrying BRCA1 (RRM at age 30 years; RRSO at age 35 years), BRCA2 (RRM at age 35 years; RRSO at age 40 years), and PALB2 (RRM at age 40 years; RRSO at age 45 years) PVs. The corresponding ICERs were -£1942/QALY (-$2680/QALY), -£89/QALY (-$123/QALY), and £2381/QALY ($3286/QALY), respectively. RRSO at age 45 years was cost-effective for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PV carriers compared with nonsurgical strategies. The corresponding ICERs were £962/QALY ($1328/QALY), £771/QALY ($1064/QALY), and £2355/QALY ($3250/QALY), respectively. The most cost-effective preventive strategy per 1000 PV carriers could prevent 923 OC and BC cases and 302 deaths among those carrying BRCA1; 686 OC and BC cases and 170 deaths for BRCA2; 464 OC and BC cases and 130 deaths for PALB2; 102 OC cases and 64 deaths for RAD51C; 118 OC cases and 76 deaths for RAD51D; and 55 OC cases and 37 deaths for BRIP1. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated both RRSO and RRM were most cost-effective in 96.5%, 89.2%, and 84.8% of simulations for BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 PVs, respectively, while RRSO was cost-effective in approximately 100% of simulations for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PVs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness study, RRSO with or without RRM at varying optimal ages was cost-effective compared with nonsurgical strategies for individuals who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. These findings support personalizing risk-reducing surgery and guideline recommendations for individual CSG-specific OC and BC risk management.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMastectomyMiddle AgedSalpingo-oophorectomy

Identifiers

PMID38334999
PMCPMC10858404
OpenAlexW4391692161

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.