MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P4-15-01: Cost-effectiveness of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for BRCA mutation carriers

2017· article· en· W2768980689 on OpenAlexaff
JH Lipton, WWL Wong, E Warner, EM Greenblatt, EK Lee, KKW Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBRCA mutationMedicineBreast cancerCost effectivenessCancerOncologyGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Management of BRCA mutation carriers is very expensive due to preventive surgeries and/or screening tests, as well as greater likelihood of cancer treatment. The related cancer burden and costs continue from generation to generation. One relatively new option for male or female BRCA mutation carriers, who wish to have children, is pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of in vitro fertilized embryos. PGD eliminates the mutation from the descendants of these carriers. The purpose of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of PGD. Methods: We developed a Markov Model using TreeAge Pro 2016 and compared incidence of cancers, cancers-related death, costs, quality adjusted life-years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the 2nd generation associated with conventional management of BRCA mutation carriers vs. PGD using a U.S. third-party payer's perspective with a lifetime horizon at a discount rate of 3% per year. In the model, health states were implemented to reflect the natural history of breast and ovarian cancer for women, and prostate cancer (and breast cancer in BRCA2 mutation carriers) for men. Model data were obtained from published literature. Costs were determined from published data and insurance payment schedules. Results: Our preliminary results show that for BRCA1 mutation carriers, the PGD with IVF strategy is associated with an increase of 0.29 QALYs and costs an additional $292.68 per person, translating to an ICER of $1,014.25/QALY when compared with “No PGD”, making it highly cost-effective. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, the PGD with IVF strategy is associated with an increase of 0.17 QALYs and costs an additional $4,916.88 per person, translating to an ICER of $28,436.10/QALY when compared with “No PGD”, making it cost-effective. Table 1StrategyCost ($)Incr Cost ($)Eff (QALY)Incr Eff (QALY)Incr C/E ($/QALY) BRCA 1 No PGD323,347.22 28.41 PGD323,639.89292.6828.70.291,014.25BRCA 2 No PGD318,723.02 28.52 PGD323,639.894,916.8828.70.1728,436.10 Conclusion: PGD for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers reduces cancer burden, increases QALYs and, is very cost-effective in the 2nd generation cohort, making this an attractive option from the perspectives of patients and public payers. Our estimates are conservative because the cost-effectiveness of PGD will likely improve further if subsequent generations are included in the model, given the expected further reduction in cancer burden and associated cost-savings in subsequent generations. Citation Format: Lipton JH, Wong WWL, Warner E, Greenblatt EM, Lee EK, Chan KKW. Cost-effectiveness of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for BRCA mutation carriers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-15-01.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207