Back to Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 6

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Mammostrat® compared with Oncotype DX® to inform the treatment of breast cancer

Authors Mislick K, Schonfeld W, Bodnar C, Tong K

Received 17 August 2013

Accepted for publication 1 October 2013

Published 16 January 2014 Volume 2014:6 Pages 37—47


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Kimberly Mislick,1 Warren Schonfeld,2 Carolyn Bodnar,3 Kuo Bianchini Tong2

1Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2Quorum Consulting, Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA; 3GE Healthcare, Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire, UK

Purpose: To compare the cost-effectiveness of the tumor subtyping assays Mammostrat® and Oncotype DX® for assessing risk of recurrence in early-stage breast cancer and the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy.
Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a US third-party payer perspective. A 10 year Markov model was developed to estimate costs and effects of using each method of risk assessment. The percentages of patients assessed as high, moderate, or low risk were obtained from multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trials. The analysis simulated the experience of women progressing through various model states representing clinical treatments and subsequent disease. Published recurrence data for Mammostrat® were adjusted appropriately to account for differences between definitions and samples of Oncotype DX® and Mammostrat® in the original clinical trials. Cost and utility data were obtained from previously published studies. Sensitivity analyses examined how base-case results might differ when input values and assumptions varied.
Results: Base-case costs for women assessed using Mammostrat® were $15,782, compared with $18,051 for women assessed with Oncotype DX®. Thus, cost savings of $2,268 resulted from using Mammostrat®. Both Mammostrat® and Oncotype DX® resulted in similar life years (9.880 and 9.882) and quality-adjusted life years (7.935 and 7.940), respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the assumptions made about recurrence are the key drivers of model results.
Discussion: Cost savings associated with the use of Mammostrat® instead of Oncotype DX® are largely due to the difference in cost between the two tests. Since survival and quality-adjusted life years were similar using either assay, Mammostrat® has economic advantages for women with early-stage breast cancer.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness analysis, IVD, breast cancer, Mammostrat, assay

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]


Readers of this article also read:

Emerging and future therapies for hemophilia

Carr ME, Tortella BJ

Journal of Blood Medicine 2015, 6:245-255

Published Date: 3 September 2015

A new recombinant factor VIII: from genetics to clinical use

Santagostino E

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2014, 8:2507-2515

Published Date: 12 December 2014

Green synthesis of water-soluble nontoxic polymeric nanocomposites containing silver nanoparticles

Prozorova GF, Pozdnyakov AS, Kuznetsova NP, Korzhova SA, Emel’yanov AI, Ermakova TG, Fadeeva TV, Sosedova LM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2014, 9:1883-1889

Published Date: 16 April 2014

Methacrylic-based nanogels for the pH-sensitive delivery of 5-Fluorouracil in the colon

Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5769-5779

Published Date: 15 November 2012

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Crystallization after intravitreal ganciclovir injection

Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:709-711

Published Date: 14 July 2010