首页> 外文期刊>International journal of gynecological cancer: official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society >Cost-Effectiveness of brca1 and brca2 mutation testing to target parp inhibitor use in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer
【24h】

Cost-Effectiveness of brca1 and brca2 mutation testing to target parp inhibitor use in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer

机译:brca1和brca2突变测试针对靶点parp抑制剂在铂敏感的复发性卵巢癌中的成本效益

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives: (1) To determine whether use of a PARP inhibitor or (2) BRCA1/2 mutation testing followed by a PARP inhibitor for test positives is potentially cost-effective for maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Methods: A modified Markov decision analysis compared 3 strategies: (1) observe; (2) olaparib to progression; (3) BRCA1/2 mutation testing; treat mutation carriers with olaparib to progression. Progression-free survival and rates of adverse events were derived from a phase 2 randomized trial. Key assumptions are as follows: (1) 14% of patients harbor a BRCA1/2 mutation; (2) progression-free survival of individuals treated with olaparib is improved for BCRA1/2 carriers compared with noncarriers (estimated hazard ratio, approximately 0.4). Costs derived from national data were assigned to treatments, adverse events, and BRCA1/2 test. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: Global olaparib was the most effective strategy, followed by BRCA1/2 testing and no olaparib. BRCA1/2 testing had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $193,442 per progression-free year of life saved (PF-YLS) compared to no olaparib, whereas global olaparib had an ICER of $234,128 per PF-YLS compared to BRCA1/2 testing. At a 52% lower-than-baseline olaparib cost estimate of $3000 per month, BRCA1/2 testing became potentially cost-effective compared with observation, with an ICER of $100,000 per PF-YLS. When strategy (1) was removed from the analysis, BRCA1/2 testing was the preferred strategy. Conclusions: The use of maintenance olaparib in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer is not cost-effective regardless of whether BRCA1/2 testing is used to direct treatment. However, BRCA1/2 testing is a preferred strategy compared to global maintenance olaparib alone.
机译:目的:(1)确定使用PARP抑制剂还是(2)BRCA1 / 2突变测试后再使用PARP抑制剂测试阳性对于维持铂敏感的复发性高级别浆液性卵巢癌的治疗可能具有成本效益。方法:改进的马尔可夫决策分析方法比较了三种策略:(1)观察; (2)奥拉帕尼进展; (3)BRCA1 / 2突变测试;用奥拉帕尼治疗突变携带者,使其进展。无进展生存率和不良事件发生率来自2期随机试验。主要假设如下:(1)14%的患者携带BRCA1 / 2突变; (2)与非携带者相比,接受olaparib治疗的个体的BCRA1 / 2携带者的无进展生存期得到了改善(估计的危险比约为0.4)。从国家数据中得出的费用被分配给治疗,不良事件和BRCA1 / 2测试。进行了蒙特卡洛概率敏感性分析。结果:整体奥拉帕尼是最有效的策略,其次是BRCA1 / 2测试,无奥拉帕尼。与没有奥拉帕尼相比,BRCA1 / 2测试的每无进展生存年(PF-YLS)的成本效益比(ICER)为193,442美元,而与奥卡帕比相比,全球奥拉帕尼的ICER为每PF-YLS 234,128美元。 2测试。奥拉帕尼的每月成本估算比基线低52%,即每月$ 3000,与观察相比,BRCA1 / 2测试具有潜在的成本效益,每个PF-YLS的ICER为$ 100,000。从分析中删除策略(1)时,首选BRCA1 / 2测试。结论:无论是否使用BRCA1 / 2检测来直接治疗,在患有严重浆液性卵巢癌的妇女中使用维持性奥拉帕尼并不划算。但是,与单独进行全球维护的奥拉帕尼相比,BRCA1 / 2测试是一种首选策略。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号