Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38353949›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Cost-Effectiveness of Population-Based Multigene Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Prevention.

Fangjian Guo, Victor Adekanmbi, Christine D Hsu, Abbey B Berenson, Yong-Fang Kuo, Ya-Chen Tina Shih

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. 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
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. GermlinePathology oncology research : POR · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cost-effectiveness analysis of population-basedFrontiers in public health · 2025
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fangjian GuoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston.
Victor AdekanmbiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston.
Christine D HsuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston.
Abbey B BerensonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston.
Yong-Fang KuoCenter for Interdisciplinary Research in Women's Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston.
Ya-Chen Tina ShihProgram in Cancer Health Economics Research, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

UTMB WOMEN'S HEALTH RESEARCH SCHOLARS PROGRAMK12HD052023 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BR GALVESTON · PI BERENSON, ABBEY B · 2005 to 2023
$8.1M
UTMB Women's Health Research Scholars ProgramK12AR084228 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI ABBEY B BERENSON · 2023 to 2026
$2.7M
Genetic testing in young women for cancer preventionK07CA222343 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI GUO, FANGJIAN · 2018 to 2022
$632k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA222343NIAMS NIH HHS K12 AR084228NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD052023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The current method of BRCA testing for breast and ovarian cancer prevention, which is based on family history, often fails to identify many carriers of pathogenic variants. Population-based genetic testing offers a transformative approach in cancer prevention by allowing for proactive identification of any high-risk individuals and enabling early interventions. Objective: To assess the lifetime incremental effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of population-based multigene testing vs family history-based testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of multigene testing (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2) for all women aged 30 to 35 years compared with the current standard of care that is family history based. Carriers of pathogenic variants were offered interventions, such as magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography, chemoprevention, or risk-reducing mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy, to reduce cancer risk. A total of 2000 simulations were run on 1 000 000 women, using a lifetime time horizon and payer perspective, and costs were adjusted to 2022 US dollars. This study was conducted from September 1, 2020, to December 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantified as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcomes included incremental cost, additional breast and ovarian cancer cases prevented, and excess deaths due to coronary heart disease (CHD). Results: The study assessed 1 000 000 simulated women aged 30 to 35 years in the US. In the base case, population-based multigene testing was more cost-effective compared with family history-based testing, with an ICER of $55 548 per QALY (95% CI, $47 288-$65 850 per QALY). Population-based multigene testing would be able to prevent an additional 1338 cases of breast cancer and 663 cases of ovarian cancer, but it would also result in 69 cases of excess CHD and 10 excess CHD deaths per million women. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses show that the probability that population-based multigene testing is cost-effective was 100%. When the cost of the multigene test exceeded $825, population-based testing was no longer cost-effective (ICER, $100 005 per QALY; 95% CI, $87 601-$11 6323). Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic analysis of population-based multigene testing, population-based testing was a more cost-effective strategy for the prevention of breast cancer and ovarian cancer when compared with the current family history-based testing strategy at the $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. These findings support the need for more comprehensive genetic testing strategies to identify pathogenic variant carriers and enable informed decision-making for personalized risk management.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreastCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMammographyMastectomy

Identifiers

PMID38353949
PMCPMC10867683
OpenAlexW4391823684

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.