Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34454549›Full record

ReviewHereditary cancer in clinical practice2021

Population or family history based BRCA gene tests of breast cancer? A systematic review of economic evaluations.

Zahra Meshkani, Ali Aboutorabi, Najmeh Moradi, Mostafa Langarizadeh, Ali Ghanbari Motlagh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hereditary cancer in clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Guidelines for genetic testing in prostate cancer: a scoping review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Health care utilization and behavior changes after workplace genetic testing at a large US health care system.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Zahra MeshkaniDepartment of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7994-2567
Ali AboutorabiHealth Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Abutorabi.a@iums.ac.ir.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2527-1304
Najmeh MoradiHealth Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4172-4411
Mostafa LangarizadehDepartment of Health Information Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2965-5038
Ali Ghanbari MotlaghClinical Oncology, Shahid Beheshti Medical University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7596-6016

Funding

Iran University of Medical Sciences IUMS/SHMIS-98-4-37-16709
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNearly 56% of at-risk carriers are not identified and missed as a result of the current family-history (FH) screening for genetic testing. The present study aims to review the economic evaluation studies on BRCA genetic testing strategies for screening and early detection of breast cancer.

methodsThis systematic literature review is conducted within the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and EMBASE databases. In this paper, the relevant published economic evaluation studies are identified by following the standard Cochrane Collaboration methods and adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement reporting some recommendations for articles up to March 2020. Thereafter, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied to screen the articles. Disagreements are resolved through a consensus meeting. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist is used in the evaluation of quality. Finally, a narrative synthesis is performed. To compare the different levels of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the net present value is calculated based on a discount rate of 3% in 2019.

resultsAmong 788 initially retrieved citations, 12 studies were included. More than 60% of the studies were originated from high-income countries and were published after 2016. It is noteworthy that most of the studies evaluated the payer perspective. Moreover, the robustness of the results were analyzed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses in nearly 66% of these studies. Nearly, 25% of the studies are focused and defined population-based and family history BRCA tests as comparators; afterwards, the cost-effectiveness of the former was confirmed. The highest and lowest absolute values for the ICERs were $65,661 and $9 per quality adjusted life years, respectively. All studies met over 70% of the CHEERs criteria checklist, which was considered as 93% of high quality on average as well.

conclusionsThe genetic BRCA tests for the general population as well as unselected breast cancer patients were cost-effective in high and upper-middle income countries and those with prevalence of gene mutation while population-based genetic tests for low-middle income countries are depended on the price of the tests.

Indexed as

BRCABreast cancerEconomic evaluationGenetic test

Identifiers

PMID34454549
PMCPMC8399845

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.