Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32537695›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2021

Economic Modelling of Screen-and-Treat Strategies for Brazilian Women at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

Julia Simoes Correa-Galendi, Maria Del Pilar Estevez Diz, Stephanie Stock, Dirk Müller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Hereditary determinants of gynecological cancer and recommendations.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. The role of genomics in global cancer prevention.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2021
    Review
  15. 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

4 authors.

Julia Simoes Correa-GalendiInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, The University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. julia.simoes-correa-galendi@uk-koeln.de.ORCID 0000-0002-4832-7294
Maria Del Pilar Estevez DizInsituto Do Cancer Do Estado de Sao Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Stephanie StockInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, The University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Dirk MüllerInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, The University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical evidence supports the use of genetic counselling and BRCA1/2 testing for women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Currently, screen-and-treat strategies are not reimbursed in the Brazilian Unified Healthcare System (SUS). The aim of this modelling study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a gene-based screen-and-treat strategy for BRCA1/2 in women with a high familial risk followed by preventive interventions compared with no screening.

methodsAdopting the SUS perspective, a Markov model with a lifelong time horizon was developed for a cohort of healthy women aged 30 years that fulfilled the criteria for BRCA1/2 testing according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline. For women who tested positive, preventive options included intensified surveillance, risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The Markov model comprised the health states 'well', 'breast cancer', 'death' and two post-cancer states. Outcomes were the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and the incremental costs per life-year gained (LYG). Data were mainly obtained by a literature review. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results.

resultsIn the base case, the screen-and-treat strategy resulted in additional costs of 3515 Brazilian reais (R$) (US$1698) and a gain of 0.145 QALYs, compared with no screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was R$24,263 (US$21,724) per QALY and R$27,258 (US$24,405) per LYG. Applying deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to the probability of a positive test result and the discount rate. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a willingness to pay of R$25,000 per QALY gained for the screen-and-treat strategy resulted in a probability of cost effectiveness of 80%.

conclusionAlthough there is no rigorous cost-effectiveness threshold in Brazil, the result of this cost-effectiveness analysis may support the inclusion of BRCA1/2 testing for women at high-risk of cancer in the SUS. The ICER calculated for the provision of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 approximates the cost-effectiveness threshold proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for low- and middle-income countries.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsBrazilCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMastectomyQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID32537695
PMCPMC7790767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.