Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:37:30.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Context-Specific Economic Evaluation for Molecular Pathology Tests: An Application in Colorectal Cancer in the West of Scotland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2019

Janet Bouttell*
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Yun Yi Tan
Affiliation:
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, United Kingdom
David Creed
Affiliation:
Merck Serono Ltd, Bedfont Cross, Stanwell Road, Feltham, Middlesex, United Kingdom
Gillian McGaffin
Affiliation:
NHS Scotland, Pathology Department, Level 3, Laboratory and Services Management Building, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Neil Hawkins
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Ruth McLaughlin
Affiliation:
Glasgow Molecular Pathology Node, University of Glasgow, Laboratory and Services Management Building, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Graeme Smith
Affiliation:
NHS Scotland, Pathology Department, Level 3, Laboratory and Services Management Building, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Paul Westwood
Affiliation:
NHS Scotland, Pathology Department, Level 3, Laboratory and Services Management Building, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Nicola Williams
Affiliation:
NHS Scotland, Pathology Department, Level 3, Laboratory and Services Management Building, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Janet Graham
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, United Kingdom
*
Author for correspondence: Janet Bouttell, E-mail: janet.bouttell@glasgow.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives

The cost-effectiveness of molecular pathology testing is highly context dependent. The field is fast-moving, and national health technology assessment may not be relevant or timely for local decision makers. This study illustrates a method of context-specific economic evaluation that can be carried out in a limited timescale without extensive resources.

Methods

We established a multi-disciplinary group including an oncologist, pathologists and a health economist. We set out diagnostic and treatment pathways and costs using registry data, health technology assessments, guidelines, audit data, and estimates from the group. Sensitivity analysis varied input parameters across plausible ranges. The evaluation setting was the West of Scotland and UK NHS perspective was adopted. The evaluation was assessed against the AdHopHTA checklist for hospital-based health technology assessment.

Results

A context-specific economic evaluation could be carried out on a timely basis using limited resources. The evaluation met all relevant criteria in the AdHopHTA checklist. Health outcomes were expected to be at least equal to the current strategy. Annual cost savings of £637,000 were estimated resulting primarily from a reduction in the proportion of patients receiving intravenous infusional chemotherapy regimens. The result was not sensitive to any parameter. The data driving the main cost saving came from a small clinical audit. We recommended this finding was confirmed in a larger population.

Conclusions

The method could be used to evaluate testing changes elsewhere. The results of the case study may be transferable to other jurisdictions where the organization of cancer services is fragmented.

Type
Assessment
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Janet Bouttell and Yun Yi Tan are first authors.

References

1.Faulkner, E, Annemans, L, Garrison, L, et al. (2012) Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicine-payer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health economics and outcomes research: A report of the ISPOR Personalized Medicine Special Interest Group. Value Health 15, 11621171.Google Scholar
2.The Royal College of Pathologists (2012) Overview of Molecular Pathology Bulletin January 2016 Number 173 [cited March 19, 2019]. https://www.rcpath.org/profession/publications/college-bulletin/college-bulletin/overview-of-molecular-pathology.html.Google Scholar
3.Sampietro-Colom, L, Martin, J, eds (2017) Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment: The Next Frontier for Health Technology Assessment. Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
4.Sampietro-Colom, L, Lach, K, Cicchetti, A, et al. (2015) The AdHopHTA handbook: A handbook of hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HB -HTA). The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007 -13 grant agreement nr 305018) [cited March 19, 2019]. http://www.adhophta.eu/handbook.Google Scholar
5.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2013) Diagnostics Assessment Programme. KRAS mutation testing of tumours in adults with metastatic colorectal cancer, Final scope. January 2013 [cited March 19, 2019]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-dt14/documents/kras-mutation-testing-of-tumours-in-adults-with-metastatic-colorectal-cancer-final-scope2.Google Scholar
6.NHS National Services Scotland (2018) Molecular pathology testing in Scotland [cited March 19, 2019]. https://www.nsd.scot.nhs.uk/services/specserv/molpath.html.Google Scholar
7.University of Glasgow (2019) Glasgow molecular pathology node - The node [cited March 19, 2019]. https://www.gla.ac.uk/colleges/mvls/node/.Google Scholar
8.NHS National Services Scotland, Information Services Division (2017) Publication summary cancer mortality in Scotland to 2016. [cited March 19, 2019]. https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Cancer/Publications/2017-10-31/2017-10-31-Cancer-Mortality-Summary.pdf.Google Scholar
9.NHS National Services Scotland, Information Services Division (2019) NHS region of residence: Trends in incidence 1991-2015 [cited March 19, 2019]. http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Cancer/Cancer-Statistics/Colorectal/.Google Scholar
10.NHS West of Scotland Cancer Network (WoSCAN) (2017) [cited March 19, 2019]. http://www.woscan.scot.nhs.uk/.Google Scholar
11.NHS West of Scotland Cancer Network, Colorectal Cancer managed clinical network (2016) Audit Report, Colorectal Cancer, Quality Performance Indicators April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 [cited March 19, 2019]. http://www.woscan.scot.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/Final-Published-Colorectal-Cancer-QPI-Audit-Report-v1.0-300316.pdf.Google Scholar
12.Ducreux, M, Bennouna, J, Hebbar, M, et al. (2011) Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer 128, 682690.Google Scholar
13.Cassidy, J, Clarke, S, Díaz-Rubio, E, et al. (2008) Randomized phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26, 20062012.Google Scholar
14.Yuan, ZX, Wang, XY, Qin, QY, et al. (2013) The prognostic role of BRAF mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 8, e65995.Google Scholar
15.Sanz-Garcia, E, Argiles, G, Elez, E, Tabernero, J (2017) BRAF mutant colorectal cancer: prognosis, treatment, and new perspectives. Ann Oncol 28, 26482657.Google Scholar
16.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014) Colorectal cancer: Diagnosis and management. Clinical guideline [CG131] [cited March 19, 2019]. Available from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg131.Google Scholar
17.Health Improvement Scotland, Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (2015) Diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer. [SIGN 126]. [cited March 19, 2019]. http://www.sign.ac.uk/sign-126-diagnosis-and-management-of-colorectal-cancer.html.Google Scholar
18.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. [cited March 19, 2019]. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781.Google Scholar
19.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2012) NICE Technology Appraisal 242. Cetuximab, bevacizumab and panitumumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy: Cetuximab (monotherapy or combination chemotherapy) bevacizumab (in combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta242.Google Scholar
21.National Health Service (2016) Reference costs for England and Wales 2015-2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2015-to-2016.Google Scholar
22.EU Clinical Trials Register (2019) Prototcol for POLEMCCR4673. https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2017-000370-10/GB#A.Google Scholar
23.National Institutes of Health (2019) National Cancer Institute. Dictionary of Cancer Terms [cited March 19, 2019]. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/microsatellite-instability.Google Scholar
24.Tappenden, P, Jones, R, Paisley, S, Carroll, C (2007) Systematic review and economic evaluation of bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Health Technol Assess 11, 1128.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bouttell et al. supplementary material

Bouttell et al. supplementary material 1

Download Bouttell et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 444.4 KB