BACKGROUND: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. This economic modeling study evaluated different preventive interventions for 30-year-old women with a confirmed BRCA (1 or 2) mutation.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and benefits [i.e., quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years gained (LYG)] associated with prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (BM), prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), BM plus BSO, BM plus BSO at age 40, and intensified surveillance. Relevant input data was obtained from a large German database including 5902 women with BRCA 1 or 2, and from the literature. The analysis was performed from the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. In order to assess the robustness of the results, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: With costs of €29,434 and a gain in QALYs of 17.7 (LYG 19.9), BM plus BSO at age 30 was less expensive and more effective than the other strategies, followed by BM plus BSO at age 40. Women who were offered the surveillance strategy had the highest costs at the lowest gain in QALYs/LYS. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of cost-saving was 57% for BM plus BSO. At a WTP of 10,000 € per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 80%.
CONCLUSIONS: From the SHI perspective, undergoing BM plus immediate BSO should be recommended to BRCA 1 or 2 mutation carriers due to its favorable comparative cost-effectiveness.
IMPORTANCE: Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is recommended for BRCA1 mutation carriers to prevent ovarian cancer. Whether or not hormone replacement therapy (HRT) initiated after oophorectomy is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer has not been evaluated in a prospective study.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between HRT use and BRCA1-associated breast cancer.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, longitudinal cohort study of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers from 80 participating centers in 17 countries was conducted between 1995 and 2017 with a mean follow-up of 7.6 years. Participants had sought genetic testing for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation because of a personal or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Carriers of BRCA1 mutation with no personal medical history of cancer who underwent bilateral oophorectomy following enrollment were eligible for the cohort study.
EXPOSURES: A follow-up questionnaire was administered every 2 years to obtain detailed information on HRT use. A left-truncated Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs associated with the initiation of HRT use postoophorectomy.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incident breast cancer.
RESULTS: A total of 872 BRCA1 mutation carriers with a mean postoophorectomy follow-up period of 7.6 years (range, 0.4-22.1) were included in this study. Mean (SD) age of participants was 43.4 (8.5) years. Among these, 92 (10.6%) incident breast cancers were diagnosed. Overall, HRT use after oophorectomy was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. The HR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.62-1.52; P = .89) for ever use of any type of HRT vs no use; however, the effects of estrogen alone and combination hormonal therapy were different. After 10 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of breast cancer among women who used estrogen-alone HRT was 12% compared with 22% among women who used estrogen plus progesterone HRT (absolute difference, 10%; log rank P = .04).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that use of estrogen after oophorectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer among women with a BRCA1 mutation and should reassure BRCA1 mutation carriers considering preventive surgery that HRT is safe. The possible adverse effect of progesterone-containing HRT warrants further study.
BACKGROUND: The appropriate management of breast cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers following ovarian cancer diagnosis remains unclear. We sought to determine the survival benefit and cost effectiveness of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) among women with BRCA1/2 mutations following stage II-IV ovarian cancer.
DESIGN: We constructed a decision model from a third-party payer perspective to compare annual screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography to annual screening followed by RRM with reconstruction following ovarian cancer diagnosis. Survival, overall costs, and cost effectiveness were determined by decade at diagnosis using 2015 US dollars. All inputs were obtained from the literature and public databases. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.
RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per year of life saved (YLS) for RRM increased with age and BRCA2 mutation status, with greater survival benefit demonstrated in younger patients with BRCA1 mutations. RRM delayed 5 years in 40-year-old BRCA1 mutation carriers was associated with 5 months of life gained (ICER $72,739/YLS), and in 60-year-old BRCA2 mutation carriers was associated with 0.8 months of life gained (ICER $334,906/YLS). In all scenarios, $/YLS and mastectomies per breast cancer prevented were lowest with RRM performed 5-10 years after ovarian cancer diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: For most BRCA1/2 mutation carriers following ovarian cancer diagnosis, RRM performed within 5 years is not cost effective when compared with breast cancer screening. Imaging surveillance should be advocated during the first several years after ovarian cancer diagnosis, after which point the benefits of RRM can be considered based on patient age and BRCA mutation status.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (collectively termed "BRCA") testing in women with epithelial ovarian cancer, and testing for the relevant mutation in first- and second-degree relatives of BRCA mutation-positive individuals, compared with no testing. Female BRCA mutation-positive relatives of patients with ovarian cancer could undergo risk-reducing mastectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed that included the risks of breast and ovarian cancer; the costs, utilities, and effects of risk-reducing surgery on cancer rates; and the costs, utilities, and mortality rates associated with cancer.
RESULTS: BRCA testing of all women with epithelial ovarian cancer each year is cost-effective at a UK willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with no testing, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4,339/QALY. The result was primarily driven by fewer cases of breast cancer (142) and ovarian cancer (141) and associated reductions in mortality (77 fewer deaths) in relatives over the subsequent 50 years. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in the input parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of germline BRCA mutation testing being cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY was 99.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing germline BRCA testing in all patients with ovarian cancer would be cost-effective in the United Kingdom. The consequent reduction in future cases of breast and ovarian cancer in relatives of mutation-positive individuals would ease the burden of cancer treatments in subsequent years and result in significantly better outcomes and reduced mortality rates for these individuals.
PURPOSE: BRCA1 mutation carriers are offered screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography. The aim of this study was to weigh benefits and risks of postponing mammographic screening until age 40.
METHODS: With the MISCAN microsimulation model two screening protocols were evaluated: 1) the current Dutch guidelines: annual MRI from age 25-60, annual mammography from age 30-60, and biennial mammography in the nationwide program from age 60-74, and 2) the modified protocol: with annual mammography postponed until age 40. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. The risks of radiation-induced breast cancer mortality were estimated with absolute and relative exposure-risk models of the 7th Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation Committee.
RESULTS: Current screening guidelines prevent 13,139 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 BRCA1 mutation carriers. Postponing mammography until age 40 would increase breast cancer deaths by 23 (0.17%), but would also reduce radiation-induced breast cancer deaths by 15 or 105 using the absolute and relative risk model respectively per 100,000 women screened. The estimated net effect is an increase of eight or a reduction of 82 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 women screened (depending on the risk model used). The incremental cost of mammograms between age 30-39 is €272,900 per life year gained.
CONCLUSIONS: The modified protocol may be slightly less effective or even better than the current guidelines. The high cost-savings justify a possible small loss of effectiveness.
Many BRCA1 mutation carriers undergo elective surgical oophorectomy (often before menopause) to manage their elevated risk of developing ovarian cancer. It is important to clarify whether or not the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to mitigate the symptoms associated with surgical or natural menopause is safe in women with an inherited BRCA1 mutation and no personal history of breast or ovarian cancer. We conducted a case-control analysis of 432 matched pairs of women with a BRCA1 mutation. Detailed information on HRT use after menopause (duration, type, age at first/last use, formulation) was obtained from a research questionnaire administered at the time of study enrollment. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) associated with HRT use. The mean duration of HRT use after menopause was 4.3 years among the cases and 4.4 years among the controls (P = 0.83). The adjusted OR for breast cancer comparing all women who ever used HRT to those who never used HRT was 0.80 (95 % CI 0.55-1.16; P = 0.24). Findings did not differ by type of menopause (natural vs. surgical), by recency of use, by duration of use, and by formulation type. These findings suggest that a short course of HRT should not be contra-indicated for BRCA1 mutation carriers who have undergone menopause and who have no personal history of cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether BRCA mutation carriers who undergo fertility treatments are at increased risk of developing invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (IEOC).
DESIGN: Historical cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary university-affiliated medical center and the National Cancer Registry.
PATIENT(S): A total of 1,073 Jewish Israeli BRCA mutation carriers diagnosed in a single institution between 1995 and 2013, including 164 carriers (15.2%) who had fertility treatments that included clomiphene citrate (n = 82), gonadotropin (n = 69), in vitro fertilization (IVF) (n = 66), or a combination (n = 50), and 909 carriers not treated for infertility.
INTERVENTION(S): None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for IEOC association with fertility treatments and other hormone and reproductive variables.
RESULT(S): In 175 (16.3%) mutation carriers, IEOC was diagnosed; 139 women carried BRCA1, 33 carried BRCA2, and 3 had unknown mutations. Fertility treatments were not associated with IEOC risk (age-adjusted OR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.38-1.05) regardless of treatment type (with clomiphene citrate, OR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.46-1.63; with gonadotropin, OR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.26-1.31; with IVF, OR 1.08, 95% CI, 0.57-2.06). Multivariate analysis indicated an increased risk of IEOC with hormone-replacement therapy (OR 2.22; 95% CI, 1.33-3.69) and a reduced risk with oral contraceptives (OR 0.19; 95% CI, 0.13-0.28) in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Parity was a risk factor for IEOC by univariate but not multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION(S): According to our results, treatments for infertile BRCA mutation carriers should not be contraindicated or viewed as risk modifiers for IEOC. Parity as a risk factor in BRCA mutation carriers warrants further investigation.
BRCA mutation carriers may use tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention or treatment. Hormone replacement therapy is often prescribed after surgical menopause and oral contraceptives are recommended for ovarian cancer prevention. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of these medications and other risk factors on endometrial cancer risk in BRCA carriers. Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were identified from a registry of mutation carriers. Cases were 83 women who had a diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Controls were 1027 matched women who did not develop endometrial cancer and who had an intact uterus. All women completed a baseline questionnaire, which included questions about ages at menarche and menopause, oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy use, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, breast cancer history and tamoxifen use. We estimated the odds ratio associated with each risk factor in a multivariate analysis. No differences were found between cases and controls in terms of age at menarche, BMI, smoking, or oral contraceptive use. In a multivariate analysis, for women taking estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy, the odds ratio was 0.23 (95% CI 0.03-1.78, p = 0.16), and for women taking progesterone-only hormone replacement therapy the odds ratio was 6.91 (95% CI 0.99-98.1, p = 0.05). The adjusted odds ratio for endometrial cancer associated with a history of tamoxifen use was 3.50 (95% CI 1.51-8.10, p = 0.003). The observed increased risk of endometrial cancer associated with progesterone-only therapy merits further study.
BACKGROUND: Population-based testing for BRCA1/2 mutations detects the high proportion of carriers not identified by cancer family history (FH)-based testing. We compared the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing with the standard FH-based approach in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) women.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare lifetime costs and effects amongst AJ women in the UK of BRCA founder-mutation testing amongst: 1) all women in the population age 30 years or older and 2) just those with a strong FH (≥10% mutation risk). The model assumes that BRCA carriers are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and annual MRI/mammography screening or risk-reducing mastectomy. Model probabilities utilize the Genetic Cancer Prediction through Population Screening trial/published literature to estimate total costs, effects in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cancer incidence, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and population impact. Costs are reported at 2010 prices. Costs/outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. We used deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to evaluate model uncertainty.
RESULTS: Compared with FH-based testing, population-screening saved 0.090 more life-years and 0.101 more QALYs resulting in 33 days' gain in life expectancy. Population screening was found to be cost saving with a baseline-discounted ICER of -£2079/QALY. Population-based screening lowered ovarian and breast cancer incidence by 0.34% and 0.62%. Assuming 71% testing uptake, this leads to 276 fewer ovarian and 508 fewer breast cancer cases. Overall, reduction in treatment costs led to a discounted cost savings of £3.7 million. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and 94% of simulations on PSA (threshold £20000) indicated that population screening is cost-effective, compared with current NHS policy.
CONCLUSION: Population-based screening for BRCA mutations is highly cost-effective compared with an FH-based approach in AJ women age 30 years and older.
Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. This economic modeling study evaluated different preventive interventions for 30-year-old women with a confirmed BRCA (1 or 2) mutation.
METHODS:
A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and benefits [i.e., quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years gained (LYG)] associated with prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (BM), prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), BM plus BSO, BM plus BSO at age 40, and intensified surveillance. Relevant input data was obtained from a large German database including 5902 women with BRCA 1 or 2, and from the literature. The analysis was performed from the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. In order to assess the robustness of the results, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS:
With costs of €29,434 and a gain in QALYs of 17.7 (LYG 19.9), BM plus BSO at age 30 was less expensive and more effective than the other strategies, followed by BM plus BSO at age 40. Women who were offered the surveillance strategy had the highest costs at the lowest gain in QALYs/LYS. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of cost-saving was 57% for BM plus BSO. At a WTP of 10,000 € per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 80%.
CONCLUSIONS:
From the SHI perspective, undergoing BM plus immediate BSO should be recommended to BRCA 1 or 2 mutation carriers due to its favorable comparative cost-effectiveness.
