Cost-effectiveness of precision molecular diagnostic tests for stage II colorectal cancer

Abstract

Background: In colorectal cancer, inappropriate use of adjuvant chemotherapies may lead to significant increases in healthcare costs and harms to patients. Genome-based interventions are being increasingly used in the stratification of patients according to their risk profiles. However, earlier cost-effectiveness analyses of precision molecular diagnostics have indicated a paucity of data on comparative health economic outcomes.Our aim was to compare the cost-effectiveness of marketed genomic tests used in the prognosis of stage II colorectal cancer patients.Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment guided by any one of the following genomic tests: 12-gene assay or the 18-gene expression assay or the 482-gene signature or the Immunoscore assay in a hypothetical cohort of patients (n=1,000) with stage II colorectal cancer.Our study investigated outcomes in three health states: no recurrence, recurrence and death. This study was conducted from a societal perspective, and a 3% discount was applied to the costs and health outcomes.Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of model parameters on the results. Results:The cost of the Immunoscore assay strategy in stage II colorectal cancer patients was estimated to be US $23,564 with a gain of 3.903 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as compared with the 12-gene assay strategy at US $24,545 and 3.903 QALYs; the 18-gene assay strategy at US $28,374 and 3.623 QALYs; and the 482-gene signature treatment strategy at US $33,315 with 3.704 QALYs. Sensitivity analyses indicated that incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values were sensitive to costs of genomic tests and adjuvant chemotherapies; and utilities related to patients in the no-recurrence health state.Conclusions: Overall, the Immunoscore assay seems to be a dominant strategy at a threshold willingnessto-pay of $50,000 per QALY, but in the US other tests have been used for longer. Thus, the 12-gene assay may generate cost savings compared to the 18-gene expression assay. The findings of our study may provide useful information to policymakers regarding selection of the most appropriate genomic test, and resource allocation decisions.