↓ Skip to main content

Specifying the ovarian cancer risk threshold of ‘premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy’ for ovarian cancer prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Genetics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 3,243)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
10 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Specifying the ovarian cancer risk threshold of ‘premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy’ for ovarian cancer prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Published in
Journal of Medical Genetics, June 2016
DOI 10.1136/jmedgenet-2016-103800
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ranjit Manchanda, Rosa Legood, Antonis C Antoniou, Vladimir S Gordeev, Usha Menon

Abstract

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is the most effective intervention to prevent ovarian cancer (OC). It is only available to high-risk women with >10% lifetime OC risk. This threshold has not been formally tested for cost-effectiveness. To specify the OC risk thresholds for RRSO being cost-effective for preventing OC in premenopausal women. The costs as well as effects of surgical prevention ('RRSO') were compared over a lifetime with 'no RRSO' using a decision analysis model. RRSO was undertaken in premenopausal women >40 years. The model was evaluated at lifetime OC risk levels: 2%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10%. Costs and outcomes are discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty in the model was assessed using both deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Outcomes included in the analyses were OC, breast cancer (BC) and additional deaths from coronary heart disease. Total costs and effects were estimated in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incidence of OC and BC; as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Published literature, Nurses Health Study, British National Formulary, Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and National Health Service reference costs. The time horizon is lifetime and perspective: payer. Premenopausal RRSO is cost-effective at 4% OC risk (life expectancy gained=42.7 days, ICER=£19 536/QALY) with benefits largely driven by reduction in BC risk. RRSO remains cost-effective at >8.2% OC risk without hormone replacement therapy (ICER=£29 071/QALY, life expectancy gained=21.8 days) or 6%if BC risk reduction=0 (ICER=£27 212/QALY, life expectancy gained=35.3 days). Sensitivity analysis indicated results are not impacted much by costs of surgical prevention or treatment of OC/ BC or cardiovascular disease. However, results were sensitive to RRSO utility scores. Additionally, 37%, 61%, 74%, 84%, 96% and 99.5% simulations on PSA are cost-effective for RRSO at the 2%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% levels of OC risk, respectively. Premenopausal RRSO appears to be extremely cost-effective at ≥4% lifetime OC risk, with ≥42.7 days gain in life expectancy if compliance with hormone replacement therapy is high. Current guidelines should be re-evaluated to reduce the RRSO OC risk threshold to benefit a number of at-risk women who presently cannot access risk-reducing surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 7 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 29 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 118. 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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#360,751
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Genetics
#14
of 3,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,156
of 373,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Genetics
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 3,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 373,295 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.