Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39264630›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing in Canada.

Li Sun, Xia Wei, Caitlin T Fierheller, Lesa Dawson, Samuel Oxley, Ashwin Kalra, Jacqueline Sia, Fabio Feldman, Stuart Peacock, Kasmintan A Schrader and 3 more

Abstract 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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

13 authors.

Li SunDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Xia WeiDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Caitlin T FierhellerCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Lesa DawsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Samuel OxleyCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Ashwin KalraCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Jacqueline SiaCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Fabio FeldmanPrevention, Screening, Hereditary Cancer Program and Quality, Safety & Accreditation, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada.
Stuart PeacockFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Kasmintan A SchraderHereditary Cancer Program, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada.
Rosa LegoodDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Janice S KwonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Ranjit ManchandaDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Population-based BRCA testing can identify many more BRCA carriers who will be missed by the current practice of BRCA testing based on family history (FH) and clinical criteria. These carriers can benefit from screening and prevention, potentially preventing many more breast and ovarian cancers and deaths than the current practice. Objective: To estimate the incremental lifetime health outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with population-based BRCA testing compared with FH-based testing in Canada. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing for all general population women aged 30 years compared with FH-based testing. BRCA carriers are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce their ovarian cancer risk and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography screening, medical prevention, and risk-reducing mastectomy to reduce their breast cancer risk. The analyses were conducted from both payer and societal perspectives. This study was conducted from October 1, 2022, to February 20, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were ovarian cancer, breast cancer, additional heart disease deaths, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic-sensitivity-analyses (PSA) were undertaken to explore the uncertainty. Results: In the simulated cohort of 1 000 000 women aged 30 years in Canada, the base case ICERs of population-based BRCA testing were CAD $32 276 (US $23 402.84) per QALY from the payer perspective or CAD $16 416 (US $11 903.00) per QALY from the societal perspective compared with FH-based testing, well below the established Canadian cost-effectiveness thresholds. Population testing remained cost-effective for ages 40 to 60 years but not at age 70 years. The results were robust for multiple scenarios, 1-way sensitivity, and PSA. More than 99% of simulations from payer and societal perspectives were cost-effective on PSA (5000 simulations) at the CAD $50 000 (US $36 254.25) per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Population-based BRCA testing could potentially prevent an additional 2555 breast cancers and 485 ovarian cancers in the Canadian population, corresponding to averting 196 breast cancer deaths and 163 ovarian cancer deaths per 1 000 000 population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, population-based BRCA testing was cost-effective compared with FH-based testing in Canada from payer and societal perspectives. These findings suggest that changing the genetic testing paradigm to population-based testing could prevent thousands of breast and ovarian cancers.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisGenetic TestingOvarian NeoplasmsAdultAgedBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinCanadaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2HumansMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID39264630
PMCPMC11393724

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.