Top

BMC Cancer

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Breast Cancer | Systematic Review

Economic evaluation of germline genetic testing for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Authors: Sook Pin Goh, Siew Chin Ong, Jue Ern Chan

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer affecting women globally. Genetic testing serves as a prevention and treatment strategy for managing BC. This study aims to systematically review economic evaluations and the quality of selected studies involving genetic screening strategies for BC in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

A search was performed to identify related articles that were published up to April 2023 on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Only English-language LMIC studies were included. Synthesis of studies characteristics, methodological and data input variations, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist) were performed.

Results

This review found five pertinent studies, mainly focusing on economic evaluations of germline genetic testing in upper-middle-income countries (Upper MICs) like Malaysia, China, and Brazil. Only one study covered multiple countries with varying incomes, including lower-middle-income nations (Lower MICs) like India. The ICERs values in various screening scenarios for early-stage BC, HER2 negative BC patients, and healthy women with clinical or family history criteria were ranging from USD 2214/QALY to USD 36,342/QALY. Multigene testing for all breast cancer patients with cascade testing was at USD 7729/QALY compared to BRCA alone. Most studies adhered to the CHEERS 2022 criteria, signifying high methodological quality.

Conclusions

Germline testing could be considered as cost-effective compared to no testing in Upper MICs (e.g., Malaysia, China, Brazil) but not in Lower MICs (e.g., India) based on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold set by each respective study. Limitations prevent a definite conclusion about cost-effectiveness across LMICs. More high-quality studies are crucial for informed decision-making and improved healthcare practices in these regions.

Available only for authorised users

Malayisa Source. Globocan 2020 [Internet]. The Global Cancer Observatory. 2021 [cited 13 May 2023].

DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM, Newman LA, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(6):438–51.CrossRef

Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, Harewood R, Matz M, Nikšić M, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018;391(10125):1023–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Verhoeven D, Kaufman CS, Siesling S, Mansel R. Breast cancer: global quality care. Oxford University Press, USA; 2019.

El Saghir NS, Adebamowo CA, Anderson BO, Carlson RW, Bird PA, Corbex M, et al. Breast cancer management in low resource countries (LRCs): consensus statement from the breast Health Global Initiative. Breast. 2011;20:3–S11.CrossRef

Economopoulou P, Dimitriadis G, Psyrri A. Beyond BRCA: new hereditary breast cancer susceptibility genes. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41(1):1–8.PubMedCrossRef

Boughey JC, Attai DJ, Chen SL, Cody HS, Dietz JR, Feldman SM, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) consensus statement from the American Society of breast surgeons: data on CPM outcomes and risks. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3100–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Rookus MA, Aalfs CM, Ausems MG, Collée JM, Jansen L, et al. Improved overall survival after contralateral risk‐reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospective analysis. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(3):668–77.PubMedCrossRef

Marmolejo DH, Wong MYZ, Bajalica-Lagercrantz S, Tischkowitz M, Balmaña J, Patócs AB, et al. Overview of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) guidelines across Europe. Eur J Med Genet. 2021;64(12):104350.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, van ‘t Veer L, Garber JE, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):1055–62.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Nelson HD, Pappas M, Zakher B, Mitchell JP, Okinaka-Hu L, Fu R. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: a systematic review to update the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):255–66.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Chlebowski RT. Breast cancer risk reduction: strategies for women at increased risk. Annu Rev Med. 2002;53(1):519–40.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Khoury MJ. Genetics and genomics in practice: the continuum from genetic disease to genetic information in health and disease. Genet Med. 2003;5(4):261–8.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Yang X, Leslie G, Doroszuk A, Schneider S, Allen J, Decker B, et al. Cancer risks associated with germline PALB2 pathogenic variants: an international study of 524 families. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(7):674.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Network NCC. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: Breast, ovarian, and pancreatic (version 3.2023). 2023.

16.

England N. Clinical commissioning policy: genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. England, UK: NHS England Specialised Services Clinical Reference Group for Medical Genetics; 2015.

17.

Manchanda R, Patel S, Gordeev VS, Antoniou AC, Smith S, Lee A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, PALB2 mutation testing in unselected general population women. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(7):714–25.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Sun J, Meng H, Yao L, Lv M, Bai J, Zhang J, et al. Germline mutations in Cancer susceptibility genes in a large series of unselected breast Cancer PatientsMutations in Cancer susceptibility genes in breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(20):6113–9.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Hughes K, Patel R, Rosen B, Compagnoni G, et al. Underdiagnosis of hereditary breast cancer: are genetic testing guidelines a tool or an obstacle? J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(6):453.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Metcalfe KA, Eisen A, Poll A, Candib A, McCready D, Cil T, et al. Rapid genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations at the time of breast cancer diagnosis: an observational study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:2219–26.PubMedCrossRef

21.

De Silva DL, Stafford L, Skandarajah AR, Sinclair M, Devereux L, Hogg K et al. Universal genetic testing for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the context of multidisciplinary team care. Med J Aust. 2023.

22.

Manchanda R, Gaba F. A commentary on population genetic testing for primary prevention: changing landscape and the need to change paradigm. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynecol. 2019.

23.

Zhang L, Bao Y, Riaz M, Tiller J, Liew D, Zhuang X, et al. Population genomic screening of all young adults in a health-care system: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet Sci. 2019;21(9):1958–68.

24.

Gabai-Kapara E, Lahad A, Kaufman B, Friedman E, Segev S, Renbaum P, et al. Population-based screening for breast and ovarian cancer risk due to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(39):14205–10.ADSPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

25.

Norum J, Grindedal EM, Heramb C, Karsrud I, Ariansen SL, Undlien DE, et al. BRCA mutation carrier detection. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the traditional family history approach and the testing of all patients with breast cancer. ESMO open. 2018;3(3):e000328.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

26.

D’Andrea E, Marzuillo C, De Vito C, Di Marco M, Pitini E, Vacchio MR, et al. Which BRCA genetic testing programs are ready for implementation in health care? A systematic review of economic evaluations. Genet Med. 2016;18(12):1171–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

27.

Koldehoff A, Danner M, Civello D, Rhiem K, Stock S, Muller D. Cost-effectiveness of targeted genetic testing for breast and ovarian Cancer: a systematic review. Value Health. 2021;24(2):303–12.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Meshkani Z, Aboutorabi A, Moradi N, Langarizadeh M, Motlagh AG. Population or family history based BRCA gene tests of breast cancer? A systematic review of economic evaluations. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2021;19(1):35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

29.

Tao Y, Liu ST, Wang W. BRCA 1/2 jiyin jiance zai ruxianai fangzhizhong de weisheng jingjixue pingjia xitong zongsu [A systematic review of the health economics evaluation of BRCA 1/2 gene detection in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer]. Zhongguo Weisheng Ziyuan. 2022;25(6):742–5564.

30.

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372.

31.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group* t. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.PubMedCrossRef

32.

World Bank Country and Lending Groups [Internet]. 2023 [cited 13 May 2023]. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.

33.

Shemilt I, James T, Marcello M. A web-based tool for adjusting costs to a specific target currency and price year. Evid Policy. 2010;6(1):51–9.CrossRef

34.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II good practices task force. Value Health. 2022;25(1):10–31.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Wu H-l, Luo Z-y, He Z-l, Gong Y, Mo M, Ming W-k, et al. All HER2-negative breast cancer patients need gBRCA testing: cost-effectiveness and clinical benefits. Br J Cancer. 2023;128(4):638–46.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Lim KK, Yoon SY, Mohd Taib NA, Shabaruddin FH, Dahlui M, Woo YL, et al. Is BRCA mutation testing cost effective for early stage breast cancer patients compared to routine clinical surveillance? The case of an upper middle-income country in Asia. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16:395–406.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Manchanda R, Sun L, Patel S, Evans O, Wilschut J, De Freitas Lopes AC, et al. Economic evaluation of population-based BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing across multiple countries and health systems. Cancers. 2020;12(7):1929.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

38.

Sun L, Cui B, Wei X, Sadique Z, Yang L, Manchanda R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for all women diagnosed with breast cancer in China. Cancers. 2022;14(7):1839.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

39.

Simoes Correa-Galendi J, del Pilar Estevez Diz M, Stock S, Müller D. Economic modelling of screen-and-treat strategies for Brazilian women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19:97–109.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Lourencao M, Simoes Correa Galendi J, Galvão HCR, Antoniazzi AP, Grasel RS, Carvalho AL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of BRCA 1/2 genetic test and preventive strategies: using real-world data from an upper-middle income country. Front Oncol. 2022;12:951310.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

41.

Lerner-Ellis J, Khalouei S, Sopik V, Narod SA. Genetic risk assessment and prevention: the role of genetic testing panels in breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2015;15(11):1315–26.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Valencia OM, Samuel SE, Viscusi RK, Riall TS, Neumayer LA, Aziz H. The role of genetic testing in patients with breast cancer: a review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(6):589–94.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Feliubadaló L, Lopez-Doriga A, Castellsagué E, Del Valle J, Menéndez M, Tornero E, et al. Next-generation sequencing meets genetic diagnostics: development of a comprehensive workflow for the analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(8):864–70.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Michaan N, Leshno M, Safra T, Sonnenblick A, Laskov I, Grisaru D. Cost effectiveness of whole population BRCA genetic screening for cancer prevention in Israel. Cancer Prev Res. 2021;14(4):455–62.CrossRef

45.

Fountzilas C, Kaklamani VG. Multi-gene panel testing in breast cancer management. Optimizing Breast Cancer Manage. 2018:121–40.

46.

Neben CL, Zimmer AD, Stedden W, van den Akker J, O’Connor R, Chan RC, et al. Multi-gene panel testing of 23,179 individuals for hereditary cancer risk identifies pathogenic variant carriers missed by current genetic testing guidelines. J Mol Diagn. 2019;21(4):646–57.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Kurian AW, Hughes E, Handorf EA, Gutin A, Allen B, Hartman A-R, et al. Breast and ovarian cancer penetrance estimates derived from germline multiple-gene sequencing results in women. JCO Precision Oncol. 2017;1:1–12.

48.

Li Y, Arellano AR, Bare LA, Bender RA, Strom CM, Devlin JJ. A multigene test could cost-effectively help extend life expectancy for women at risk of hereditary breast cancer. Value Health. 2017;20(4):547–55.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Hall MJ, Reid JE, Burbidge LA, Pruss D, Deffenbaugh AM, Frye C, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women of different ethnicities undergoing testing for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2009;115(10):2222–33.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Catana A, Apostu AP, Antemie R-G. Multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer-is it ready to be used? Med Pharm Rep. 2019;92(3):220.PubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Lim YX, Lim ZL, Ho PJ, Li J. Breast cancer in Asia: incidence, mortality, early detection, mammography programs, and risk-based screening initiatives. Cancers. 2022;14(17):4218.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

52.

Childers CP, Childers KK, Maggard-Gibbons M, Macinko J. National estimates of genetic testing in women with a history of breast or ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(34):3800.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

53.

Manchanda R, Legood R, Burnell M, McGuire A, Raikou M, Loggenberg K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population screening for BRCA mutations in Ashkenazi jewish women compared with family history–based testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(1):dju380.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Manchanda R, Patel S, Antoniou AC, Levy-Lahad E, Turnbull C, Evans DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population based BRCA testing with varying Ashkenazi jewish ancestry. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(5):578. e1-. e12.CrossRef

55.

Hafertepen L, Pastorino A, Morman N, Snow J, Halaharvi D, Byrne L, et al. Barriers to genetic testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: do surgeons limit testing? Am J Surg. 2017;214(1):105–10.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Kuntz K, Sainfort F, Butler M, Taylor B, Kulasingam S, Gregory S, et al. Decision and simulation modeling alongside systematic reviews. Decision and Simulation modeling in systematic reviews [Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.

57.

Graves J, Garbett S, Zhou Z, Schildcrout JS, Peterson J. Comparison of decision modeling approaches for health technology and policy evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(4):453–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

58.

Zischke J, White N, Gordon L. Accounting for Intergenerational Cascade Testing in Economic Evaluations of Clinical Genomics: a scoping review. Value Health. 2022;25(6):944–53.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Guzauskas GF, Garbett S, Zhou Z, Spencer SJ, Smith HS, Hao J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the United States. JAMA Netw open. 2020;3(10):e2022874–e.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

60.

Metcalfe K, Eisen A, Senter L, Armel S, Bordeleau L, Meschino WS, et al. International trends in the uptake of cancer risk reduction strategies in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Br J Cancer. 2019;121(1):15–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

61.

Simões Corrêa Galendi J, Kautz-Freimuth S, Stock S, Müller D. Uptake rates of risk-reducing surgeries for women at increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian Cancer applied to cost-effectiveness analyses: a scoping systematic review. Cancers. 2022;14(7):1786.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

62.

Petelin L, Hossack L, Mitchell G, Liew D, Trainer AH, James PA. A Microsimulation Model for evaluating the effectiveness of Cancer Risk management for BRCA pathogenic variant carriers: miBRovaCAre. Value Health. 2019;22(8):854–62.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Manchanda R, Abdelraheim A, Johnson M, Rosenthal AN, Benjamin E, Brunell C, et al. Outcome of risk-reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy in BRCA carriers and women of unknown mutation status. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(7):814–24.CrossRef

64.

Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4(2):133–45.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.PubMedCrossRef

66.

Teppala S, Hodgkinson B, Hayes S, Scuffham P, Tuffaha H. A review of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for germline variants in familial cancer. J Med Econ. 2023;26(1):19–33.PubMedCrossRef

67.

Terkola R, Antoñanzas F, Postma M. Economic evaluation of personalized medicine: a call for real-world data. Springer; 2017. pp. 1065–7.

Title: Economic evaluation of germline genetic testing for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review
Authors: Sook Pin Goh
Siew Chin Ong
Jue Ern Chan
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12038-7

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Phase I/II clinical trial of efficacy and safety of EGCG oxygen nebulization inhalation in the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia patients with cancer

Binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously treated microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS mutations in an open-label phase 1b/2 study

Radiation-induced upregulation of FGL1 promotes esophageal squamous cell carcinoma metastasis via IMPDH1

Targeting PCSK9 to upregulate MHC-II on the surface of tumor cells in tumor immunotherapy

UCHL5 promotes hepatocellular carcinoma progression by promoting glycolysis through activating Wnt/β-catenin pathway

Discovery of a small molecule that inhibits Bcl-3-mediated cyclin D1 expression in melanoma cells

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer