Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am J Manag Care ; 23(12): e416-e420, 2017 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29261249

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Value-based payment reforms shift cost-containment responsibilities to the physician. Although gene expression profiling (GEP) utilizing a 21-gene panel among patients with early-stage, axillary lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, HER2/neu oncogene-negative breast cancer is able to identify a cohort that may achieve excellent outcomes without adjuvant chemotherapy, high up-front costs (list price, $4175) could dissuade usage. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of consecutive patients with breast cancer treated at a single cancer center. METHODS: Chart review of 227 patients 70 years or younger with outpatient costs (ie, drug average sales price, reagent costs, physician charges) during first 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: Of these patients, 68% underwent GEP, with 52%, 43%, and 5% having low, intermediate, and high recurrence risk scores, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was utilized less in genomically profiled cohorts (19% vs 29%; P = .08) and was consistent with recommendations of the recurrence scores. The mean 6-month outpatient costs were $24,955 with adjuvant chemotherapy and $2654 with hormonal therapy. Patients with stage II cancer undergoing GEP received adjuvant chemotherapy at a lower frequency (28.6% vs 86.7%), but patients with stage I cancer who underwent testing were slightly more likely to receive chemotherapy (15.8% vs 14%) because the test identified patients with higher-risk tumors. Universal GEP testing of patients with stage II cancer would have resulted in net savings of $11,494 per patient inclusive of test cost; stage I testing would have increased costs by $4505. Similar trends for grade 2/3 tumors (-$2394) and grade 1 tumors (+$6047) were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Universal GEP testing of women 70 years or younger with stage II or grade 2/3 lymph node-negative breast cancers would result in lower outpatient costs, inclusive of the diagnostic test, within the first 6-month episode of care.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/economics , Gene Expression Profiling/economics , Genetic Testing/economics , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant/economics , Female , Gene Expression Profiling/methods , Genetic Testing/methods , Humans , Male , Neoplasm Staging , Receptor, ErbB-2/genetics , Retrospective Studies
2.
Clin Lung Cancer ; 18(6): 651-659, 2017 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28479369

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: National guidelines have advocated broad molecular profiling as a part of the standard diagnostic evaluation for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with the goal of identifying driver mutations for which effective therapies or clinical trials are available. However, adherence to genomic testing guidelines could present challenges to community oncologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of genomic testing patterns in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC treated by 89 oncologists at 15 sites throughout New Jersey and Maryland from January 2013 to December 2015. RESULTS: A total of 814 patients (89% with stage IV; 11% with stage IIIB) were identified in the COTA Inc database. Of the 814 patients, 479 (59%) met the guideline recommendations for EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) and ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase) biomarker testing; 63 (8%) underwent comprehensive genomic profiling for all 4 major types of alterations (point mutations, indels, fusions, and copy number amplifications). Gender, age, race, site of care (referral vs. community center), and practice size did not influence comprehensive genomic profiling frequency. Active smokers and patients who died within 30 days were tested less frequently (P < .05). Among those not tested for EGFR and ALK, 52% received chemotherapy without documented reasons for no testing, 32% did not receive antineoplastic therapy, and 13% had insufficient tissue for genotyping. CONCLUSION: Genomic testing presents multiple logistical challenges for the community-based oncologist, including coordination of sample handling, long turnaround times, test reimbursement, access to targeted therapies, insufficient tissue, and patient harm from the repeat biopsies necessary if the tissue sample is insufficient. Opportunities exist for improvement in guideline adherence, possibly through new technologies such as "liquid biopsies," which obviates the need tissue biopsy samples in select settings.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/diagnosis , Genomics/methods , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Aged , Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Biomarkers, Tumor/metabolism , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/genetics , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Community Health Services/methods , ErbB Receptors/genetics , Female , Genetic Testing/methods , Genotype , Guideline Adherence , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/genetics , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Male , Maryland , Middle Aged , Mutation , Neoplasm Staging , New Jersey , Oncologists/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Receptor Protein-Tyrosine Kinases/genetics , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...