Results

RDF/XMLNTriplesTurtleShow queryShare ▶
SubjectPredicateObject
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#typehttp://purl.uniprot.org/core/Journal_Citation
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment"

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."xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier"doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.01.004"xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/author"Dyer M."xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/author"Rahman N."xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/author"George A."xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/author"Bentley A."xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/author"Strydom A."xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/author"Eccleston A."xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/author"Vereecken W."xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/date"2017"xsd:gYear
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/name"Value Health"xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/pages"567-576"xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/title"A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing in UK Women with Ovarian Cancer."xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://purl.uniprot.org/core/volume"20"xsd:string
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#exactMatchhttp://purl.uniprot.org/pubmed/28407998
http://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/primaryTopicOfhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28407998
http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/#_A0A0F6TMZ9-mappedCitation-28407998http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#objecthttp://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998
http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/#_A0A0F6TN25-mappedCitation-28407998http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#objecthttp://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998
http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/#_A0A0F6TN92-mappedCitation-28407998http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#objecthttp://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998
http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/#_A0A068BDS2-mappedCitation-28407998http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#objecthttp://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998
http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/#_A0A068BDS6-mappedCitation-28407998http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#objecthttp://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998
http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/#_A0A068BDT0-mappedCitation-28407998http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#objecthttp://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998
http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/#_A0A068BDU2-mappedCitation-28407998http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#objecthttp://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998
http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/#_A0A068BEU4-mappedCitation-28407998http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#objecthttp://purl.uniprot.org/citations/28407998
▶