BreastFamily PracticeOBGYN & Women's HealthHematology & OncologyInternal MedicinePathologyCancerBreast CancerGeneral HealthScreeningHealth TechnologyGenetics
HealthDay operates under the strictest editorial standards. Our syndicated news content is completely independent of any financial interests, is based solely on industry-respected sources and the latest scientific research, and is carefully fact-checked by a team of industry experts to ensure accuracy.
- All articles are edited and checked for factual accuracy by our Editorial Team prior to being published.
- Unless otherwise noted, all articles focusing on new research are based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals or issued from independent and respected medical associations, academic groups and governmental organizations.
- Each article includes a link or reference to the original source.
- Any known potential conflicts of interest associated with a study or source are made clear to the reader.
Please see our Editorial and Fact-Checking Policy for more detail.Editorial and Fact-Checking Policy
HealthDay Editorial Commitment
HeathDay is committed to maintaining the highest possible levels of impartial editorial standards in the content that we present on our website. All of our articles are chosen independent of any financial interests. Editors and writers make all efforts to clarify any financial ties behind the studies on which we report.
FRIDAY, Jan. 19, 2018 (HealthDay News) -- A gene expression profile test to predict risk of breast cancer recurrence is less cost-effective in real-world practice as compared to ideal conditions, according to a study published online Jan. 8 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Young Chandler, Ph.D., from the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, D.C., and colleagues created a simulation model to compare 25-year societal incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of community Oncotype DX use (from 2005 to 2012) versus usual care in the pretesting era (2000 to 2004).
The researchers found that 24 percent of test-eligible patients had Oncotype DX testing. Testing was higher in younger patients and in patients with stage I disease (versus stage IIA). More than three-quarters (75.3 percent) of patients with high-recurrence risk scores, and 10.2 percent of patients with low-recurrence risk scores received chemotherapy. Compared to usual care, the cost-effectiveness ratio for testing was $188,125 per QALY. Test effects on worry versus reassurance reduced the cost-effectiveness ratio to $58,431 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness ratio was lowered to $28,947 per QALY with perfect test accuracy, and $39,496 per QALY under ideal conditions.
"The differences in cost-effectiveness ratios based on community versus ideal conditions underscore the importance of considering real-world implementation when assessing the new technology," the authors write.
This story may be outdated. We suggest some alternatives.
The content contained in this article is over two years old. As such our recommendation is that you reference the articles below for the latest updates on this topic. This article has been left on our site as a matter of historic record. Please contact us at email@example.com with any questions.
Updated on May 28, 2022
Read this Next
Other Trending Articles