Pcn12 Cost-Effectiveness of the Oncotype Dx® Assay in Australia: An Exploratory Analysis

O'Leary, BA; Foteff, C; Byron, K; Chang, Chia-Hao; Chao, Calvin; Ng, Chu Woon; Skrzypczak, Stan

doi:10.1016/s1098-3015(11)73105-9

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Four studies 74,112,113 either were funded by the test manufacturer or were carried out by researchers who worked for the manufacturer. 114 All studies compared the given genomic test with current conventional management, which consisted of current national guidelines and tools based on patient clinicopathological data (such as Adjuvant! Online, 17 PREDICT 18 and the NPI 19 ).…”

Section: Cost-effectiveness Analyses Of Multiparameter Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining four studies 74,111,114,115 found Oncotype DX to be more costly and more effective than standard care. The highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value was estimated in the only study that included patients with high levels of lymph node involvement (1-9 positive nodes).…”

Section: Cost-effectiveness Analyses Of Multiparameter Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This includes cost-benefit analyses, cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses. A total of seven studies, 74,[111][112][113][114][115][116] published between 2005 and 2013, were identified in the review: four directly from Ovid, and three via additional hand-searching. No head-to-head comparisons of the alternative genomic tests were identified.…”

Section: Participating Centresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

OPTIMA prelim: a randomised feasibility study of personalised care in the treatment of women with early breast cancer

Stein

Dunn²,

Bartlett

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 10/34/01. The contractual start date was in May 2012. The draft report began editorial review in May 2014 and was accepted for publication in September 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Background: There i...

show abstract

Section: Cost-effectiveness Analyses Of Multiparameter Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cost-effectiveness Analyses Of Multiparameter Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participating Centresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

OPTIMA prelim: a randomised feasibility study of personalised care in the treatment of women with early breast cancer

Stein

Dunn²,

Bartlett

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that Oncotype Dx may be cost effective in the Australian setting from reductions in the costs of chemotherapy combined with estimated monetary gains from increased quality of life estimations (QALY). 7 A retrospective review was completed in the most recent and consecutive 100 lymph node-negative, ER-positive and HER2-negative patients from Nambour Hospital (Queensland, Australia) prior to January 2012. All patients in this study were potentially medically fit for chemotherapy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The financial burden of using Oncotype Dx for patients with lymph node‐negative and estrogen receptor‐positive breast cancer in Australia

Sakata

Cronk

2013

Asia-Pac J Clncl Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multigene assays and molecular markers in breast cancer: systematic review of health economic analyses

Rouzier

Pronzato

Chéreau

et al. 2013

Breast Cancer Res Treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast cancer is the most common female cancer and is associated with a significant clinical and economic burden. Multigene assays and molecular markers represent an opportunity to direct chemotherapy only to patients likely to have significant benefit. This systematic review examines published health economic analyses to assess the support for adjuvant therapy decision making. Literature searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and congress databases were carried out to identify economic evaluations of multigene assays and molecular markers published between 2002 and 2012. After screening and data extraction, study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. The review identified 29 publications that reported evaluations of two assays: Oncotype DX® and MammaPrint. Studies of both tests provided evidence that their routine use was cost saving or cost-effective versus conventional approaches. Benefits were driven by optimal allocation of adjuvant chemotherapy and reduction in chemotherapy utilization. Findings were sensitive to variation in the frequency of chemotherapy prescription, chemotherapy costs, and patients’ risk profiles. Evidence suggests that multigene assays are likely cost saving or cost-effective relative to current approaches to adjuvant therapy. They should benefit decision making in early-stage breast cancer in a variety of settings worldwide.

show abstract

Pcn12 Cost-Effectiveness of the Oncotype Dx® Assay in Australia: An Exploratory Analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

OPTIMA prelim: a randomised feasibility study of personalised care in the treatment of women with early breast cancer

OPTIMA prelim: a randomised feasibility study of personalised care in the treatment of women with early breast cancer

The financial burden of using Oncotype Dx for patients with lymph node‐negative and estrogen receptor‐positive breast cancer in Australia

Multigene assays and molecular markers in breast cancer: systematic review of health economic analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About