Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy

Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) (Impact Factor: 5.03). 10/2006; 10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. DOI: 10.3310/hta10340
Source: PubMed


To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to identify patients with breast cancer who should receive adjuvant therapy.
Electronic databases from 1980 through to February 2002. A survey of clinical practice in UK cancer centres and units. Large retrospective dataset containing data on prognostic factors, treatments and outcomes for women with early breast cancer treated in Oxford.
Between six and nine databases were searched by an information expert. Evidence-based methods were used to review and select those studies and the quality of each included paper was assessed using standard assessment tools reported in the literature or piloted and developed for this study. A survey of clinical practice in UK cancer centres and units was carried out to ensure that conclusions drawn from the report could be implemented. These data, along with the information gathered in the systematic reviews, informed the methodological approach adopted for the health economic modelling. An illustrative framework was developed for incorporating patient-level prediction within a health economic decision model. This framework was applied to a large retrospective dataset containing data on prognostic factors, treatments and outcomes for women with early breast cancer treated in Oxford. The data were used to estimate directly a parametric regression-based risk equation, from which a prognostic index was developed, and prognosis-specific estimates of the baseline breast cancer hazard could be observed. Published estimates of treatment effects, health service treatment costs and utilities were used to construct a decision analytic framework around this risk equation, thus enabling simulation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant therapy for all possible combinations of prognostic factors included in the model.
The lack of good-quality systematic reviews and well-conducted studies of prognostic factors in breast cancer is a striking finding. There are no registers of studies of prognostic factors or of reviews of prognostic studies. Many of the reviews used weak methods, primary studies are similar with poor methodology and reporting of results. In addition, there is much variation in patient populations, assay methods, analysis of results, definitions used and reporting of results. Most studies appear to be retrospective and some use inappropriate methods likely to inflate outcomes such as optimising cut points and failing to test the results in an independent population. Very few reviews used meta-analysis to conduct a pooled analysis and to provide an estimate of the average size of any association. Instead, most reviews relied on vote counting. Although many prognostic models for breast cancer have been published, remarkably few have been re-examined by independent groups in independent settings. The few validation studies have been carried out on ill-defined samples, sometimes of smaller size and short follow-up, and sometimes using different patient outcomes when validating a model. The evidence from the validation studies shows support for the prognostic value of the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI). No new prognostic factors have been shown to add substantially to those identified in the 1980s. Improvement of this index depends on finding factors that are as important as, but independent of, lymph node, stage and pathological grade. The NPI remains a useful clinical tool, although additional factors may enhance its use. We accepted that hormone receptor status (ER) for hormonal therapy such as tamoxifen and prediction of response to trastuzumab by HER2 did not require systematic review, as the mechanism of action of these drugs requires intact receptors. There was no clear evidence that other factors were useful predictors of response and survival. The survey confirmed pathological nodal status, tumour grade, tumour size and ER status as the most clinically important factors for consideration when selecting women with early breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy in the UK. The protocols revealed that although UK cancer centres appear to be using the same prognostic and predictive factors when selecting women to receive adjuvant therapy, much variation in clinical practice exists. Some centres use protocols based upon the NPI whereas others do not use a single index score. Within NPI and non-NPI users, between-centre variability exists in guidelines for women for whom the benefits are uncertain. Consensus amongst units appears to be greatest when selecting women for adjuvant hormone therapy with the decision based primarily upon ER or progesterone receptor status rather than combinations of a number of factors. Guidelines as to who should receive adjuvant chemotherapy, however, were found to be much less uniform. Searches of the literature revealed only five published papers that had previously examined the cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information for clinical decision-making. These studies were of varying quality and highlight the fact that economic evaluation in this area appears still to be in its infancy. By combining methodologies used in determining prognosis with those used in health economic evaluation, it was possible to illustrate an approach for simulating the effectiveness (survival and quality-adjusted survival) and the cost-effectiveness associated with the decision to treat individual women or groups of women with different prognostic characteristics. The model showed that effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant systemic therapy have the potential to vary substantially depending upon prognosis. For some women therapy may prove very effective and cost-effective, whereas for others it may actually prove detrimental (i.e. the reductions in health-related quality of life outweigh any survival benefit).
Outputs from the framework constructed using the methods described here have the potential to be useful for clinicians, attempting to determine whether net benefits can be obtained from administering adjuvant therapy for any presenting woman; and also for policy makers, who must be able to determine the total costs and outcomes associated with different prognosis based treatment protocols as compared with more conventional treat all or treat none policies. A risk table format enabling clinicians to look up a patient's prognostic factors to determine the likely benefits (survival and quality-adjusted survival) from administering therapy may be helpful. For policy makers, it was demonstrated that the model's output could be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatment protocols based upon prognostic information. The framework should also be valuable in evaluating the likely impact and cost-effectiveness of new potential prognostic factors and adjuvant therapies.

Download full-text


Available from: Julie Glanville,
27 Reads
  • Source
    • "For women whose a priori risk is close to a threshold level that would warrant intervention, incorporating additional factors into the risk assessment will likely change their risk classification, impacting clinical care decision-making (Mealiffe et al. 2010). Improving discriminatory accuracy of risk assessment can also aid clinicians in making more cost-effective decisions about testing and Cancer Risk Assessment Using Genetic Panel Testing treatment by identifying those most likely to benefit from these interventions (Mealiffe et al. 2010; Williams et al. 2006). Another significant benefit of cancer panel screening is the ability to assess risks in those who would not routinely come to attention because they do not meet the standard high risk criteria. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the completion of the Human Genome Project and the development of high throughput technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, the use of multiplex genetic testing, in which multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously to test for one or more conditions, is growing rapidly. Reflecting underlying heterogeneity where a broad range of genes confer risks for one or more cancers, the development of genetic cancer panels to assess these risks represents just one example of how multiplex testing is being applied clinically. There are a number of issues and challenges to consider when conducting genetic testing for cancer risk assessment, and these issues become exceedingly more complex when moving from the traditional single-gene approach to panel testing. Here, we address the practical considerations for clinical use of panel testing for breast, ovarian, and colon cancers, including the benefits, limitations and challenges, genetic counseling issues, and management guidelines.
    Journal of Genetic Counseling 03/2014; 23(4). DOI:10.1007/s10897-014-9695-6 · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "A logical and appropriate next step is to conduct a systematic review of reviews of the topic under consideration, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, thereby providing clinical decision makers with the evidence they need. We have been involved in several examples of systematic reviews (or overviews) of reviews [6-9] and The Cochrane Collaboration introduced a new type of Cochrane review in 2009 [10], the overview of Cochrane reviews, with two full overviews [11,12] and protocols for five more [13-17] published by October 2010. These reviews of reviews aims to provide a summary of evidence from more than one systematic review at a variety of different levels, including the combination of different interventions, different outcomes, different conditions, problems or populations, or the provision of a summary of evidence on the adverse effects of an intervention [10]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hundreds of studies of maternity care interventions have been published, too many for most people involved in providing maternity care to identify and consider when making decisions. It became apparent that systematic reviews of individual studies were required to appraise, summarise and bring together existing studies in a single place. However, decision makers are increasingly faced by a plethora of such reviews and these are likely to be of variable quality and scope, with more than one review of important topics. Systematic reviews (or overviews) of reviews are a logical and appropriate next step, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, providing clinical decision makers with the evidence they need. The methods used to identify and appraise published and unpublished reviews systematically, drawing on our experiences and good practice in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews are described. The process of identifying and appraising all published reviews allows researchers to describe the quality of this evidence base, summarise and compare the review's conclusions and discuss the strength of these conclusions. Methodological challenges and possible solutions are described within the context of (i) sources, (ii) study selection, (iii) quality assessment (i.e. the extent of searching undertaken for the reviews, description of study selection and inclusion criteria, comparability of included studies, assessment of publication bias and assessment of heterogeneity), (iv) presentation of results, and (v) implications for practice and research. Conducting a systematic review of reviews highlights the usefulness of bringing together a summary of reviews in one place, where there is more than one review on an important topic. The methods described here should help clinicians to review and appraise published reviews systematically, and aid evidence-based clinical decision-making.
    BMC Medical Research Methodology 02/2011; 11(1):15. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-11-15 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In recognition of this, some clinicians in the UK have attempted to discriminate between patients within NPI prognostic groups. Examples include restricting chemotherapy to oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative patients with an NPI score ⩽3.4, or to women aged <50 years with an NPI score ⩽4.4 (Williams et al, 2006). Only recently has a more formal approach to obtain better baseline prognosis predictions using the NPI been proposed, with the publication of an algorithm for converting all individual NPI scores into 10-year survival percentages (Blamey et al, 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We aimed to estimate and externally validate a new UK-specific prognostic model for predicting the long-term risk of a first recurrent event (local recurrence, metastatic recurrence, or second primary breast cancer) in women diagnosed with early breast cancer. Using data on the prognostic characteristics and outcomes of 1844 women treated for early breast cancer at the Churchill Hospital in Oxford, parametric regression-based survival analysis was used to estimate a prognostic model for recurrence-free survival. The model, which incorporated established prognostic factors, was externally validated using independent data. Its performance was compared with that of the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) and Adjuvant! Online. The number of positive axillary lymph nodes, tumour grade, tumour size and patient age were strong predictors of recurrence. Oestrogen receptor (ER) positivity was shown to afford a moderate protective effect. The model was able to separate patients into distinct prognostic groups, and predicted well at the patient level, mean Brier Accuracy Score=0.17 (s.e.=0.004) and overall C=0.745 (95% CI, 0.717-0.773). Its performance diminished only slightly when applied to a second independent data set. When compared with the NPI, the model was able to better discriminate between women with excellent and good prognoses, and it did not overestimate 10-year recurrence-free survival to the extent observed for Adjuvant! Online. The model estimated here predicts well at both the individual patient and group levels, and appears transportable to patients treated at other UK hospitals. Its parametric form permits long-term extrapolation giving it an advantage over other prognostic tools currently in use. A simple point scoring system and reference table allow 5-, 10-, and 15-year predictions from the model to be quickly and easily estimated. The model is also available to download as an interactive computer program.
    British Journal of Cancer 09/2010; 103(6):776-86. DOI:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605863 · 4.84 Impact Factor
Show more