Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31708649›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2019

Cost-utility analysis of 21-gene assay for node-positive early breast cancer.

L Masucci, S Torres, A Eisen, M Trudeau, I Tyono, H Saunders, K W Chan, W Isaranuwatchai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. The Role of the 21-Gene Recurrence ScoreCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Review
  7. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence ScoreClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

L MasucciCentre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
S TorresSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
A EisenSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
M TrudeauSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
I TyonoSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
H SaundersCentre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
K W ChanSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
W IsaranuwatchaiCentre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
University of Toronto · CACanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control · CACancer Care Ontario · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: For women with lymph node (ln)-positive, estrogen receptor-positive, and her2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-negative breast cancer (bca), current guidelines recommend treatment with both hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. The 21-gene Recurrence Score (rs) assay might be helpful in selecting patients with bca who can be spared chemotherapy when they have 1-3 positive lns and a lower risk of recurrence. In the present study, we performed a cost-utility analysis comparing use of the 21-gene rs assay with current practice from the perspective of a Canadian health care payer. Methods: A Markov model was developed to determine costs and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) over a patient's lifetime. Patient outcomes in both study groups were examined based on published clinical trials. Costs were derived primarily from published Canadian sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually, and costs are reported in 2016 Canadian dollars. A probabilistic analysis was used, and the model parameters were varied in a sensitivity analysis. Results: The results indicate that use of the 21-gene rs assay was less costly ($432 less) and more effective (0.22 qalys) than current practice. The probabilistic analysis revealed that 70% of the 10,000 simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in the southeast quadrant. The results were sensitive to the probability of a low rs and to the probability of receiving chemotherapy in the low-risk rs category and in current practice. Conclusions: Use of the 21-gene rs assay could be a cost-effective strategy for Ontario patients with estrogen receptor-positive, her2-negative early bca and 1-3 positive lns.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBiological AssayBreast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGenesHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAntineoplastic Agents21-gene assaybreast cancerchemotherapyCost-effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID31708649
PMCPMC6821112
OpenAlexW2981557319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.