| Title |
Cost Effectiveness of Gene Expression Profile Testing in Community Practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Oncology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1200/jco.2017.74.5034 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Young Chandler, Clyde B Schechter, Jinani Jayasekera, Aimee Near, Suzanne C O'Neill, Claudine Isaacs, Charles E Phelps, G Thomas Ray, Tracy A Lieu, Scott Ramsey, Jeanne S Mandelblatt |
| Abstract |
Purpose Gene expression profile (GEP) testing can support chemotherapy decision making for patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative breast cancers. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of one GEP test, Onco type DX (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA), in community practice with test-eligible patients age 40 to 79 years. Methods A simulation model compared 25-year societal incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of community Onco type DX use from 2005 to 2012 versus usual care in the pretesting era (2000 to 2004). Inputs included Onco type DX and chemotherapy data from an integrated health care system and national and published data on Onco type DX accuracy, chemotherapy effectiveness, utilities, survival and recurrence, and Medicare and patient costs. Sensitivity analyses varied individual parameters; results were also estimated for ideal conditions (ie, 100% testing and adherence to test-suggested treatment, perfect test accuracy, considering test effects on reassurance or worry, and lowest costs). Results Twenty-four percent of test-eligible patients had Onco type DX testing. Testing was higher in younger patients and patients with stage I disease ( v stage IIA), and 75.3% and 10.2% of patients with high and low recurrence risk scores received chemotherapy, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio for testing ( v usual care) was $188,125 per QALY. Considering test effects on worry versus reassurance decreased the cost-effectiveness ratio to $58,431 per QALY. With perfect test accuracy, the cost-effectiveness ratio was $28,947 per QALY, and under ideal conditions, it was $39,496 per QALY. Conclusion GEP testing is likely to have a high cost-effectiveness ratio on the basis of community practice patterns. However, realistic variations in assumptions about key variables could result in GEP testing having cost-effectiveness ratios in the range of other accepted interventions. The differences in cost-effectiveness ratios on the basis of community versus ideal conditions underscore the importance of considering real-world implementation when assessing the new technology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 37% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 74% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 19% |
| Scientists | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 98 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 29 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 40 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2019.
All research outputs
#586,720
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#1,264
of 22,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,598
of 450,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#38
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.