ScienceDaily (Nov. 28, 2012) ? Researchers news that screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations can revoke a cost of anti-EGFR diagnosis for metastatic colorectal cancer though with a really tiny rebate in altogether presence according to a new investigate published on Nov 28 in a Journal of a National Cancer Institute.
Metastatic colorectal cancer patients whose tumors bay mutations in KRAS (and to a obtuse extent, in BRAF) are doubtful to respond to dear anti-EGFR therapies. Screening of patients who are possibilities for these therapies for mutations in one of these genes (KRAS) has been recommended, with a idea of providing diagnosis to those who are approaching to advantage from it while avoiding nonessential costs and mistreat to those who are not approaching to benefit. However, a real-world impact of turn screening for both KRAS and BRAF is unclear.
To improved know a impact of turn screening with courtesy to health outcomes, costs, and value, Ajay S. Behl, Ph.D., M.B.A., of a HealthPartners Research Foundation in Bloomington, Minnesota, and colleagues, achieved a cost-effectiveness research that took into comment a treatments, resection of metastases, and presence for a opposite forms of metastases. They conducted patient-level preference analytic make-believe displaying comparing 4 strategies involving KRAS and BRAF turn contrast to name treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer patients: no anti-EGFR therapy (best understanding care); anti-EGFR therapy but screening; screening for KRAS mutations usually (before providing anti-EGFR therapy); and screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations (before providing anti-EGFR therapy).
The researchers found that compared with no anti-EGFR therapy, screening for both KRAS and BRAF mutations showed a really high (ie, unfavorable) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, definition it was really dear in propinquity to a benefits. Compared with anti-EGFR therapy but screening, screening for KRAS mutations saved approximately $7,500 per patient; adding BRAF turn screening saved another $1023, with small rebate in approaching survival.
The authors write, “In general, a formula are reduction understanding of a use of anti-EGFR therapy than prior analyses, and they prove reduce cost assets from KRAS contrast than formerly reported. Although we can’t endorse that anti-EGFR therapy is a cost-effective use of health caring resources, we can attest that KRAS contrast is cost-saving. BRAF contrast might offer additional savings.”
In an concomitant editorial, Josh J. Carlson, M.P.H., Ph.D., of a Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, and Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of a Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle, note dual unsentimental points highlighted by a study: that molecular contrast is as most about generating cost assets by identifying nonresponders as it is about improving presence by identifying responders, and that good displaying contingency comment for a fact that village use (as against to clinical trials) “is messy.” They write, “most importantly, this investigate of an scarcely accurate exam raises critical issues that should be deliberate for other molecular tests in other settings.”
Other amicable bookmarking and pity tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials supposing by Journal of a National Cancer Institute, around EurekAlert!, a use of AAAS.
Note: Materials might be edited for calm and length. For serve information, greatfully hit a source cited above.
Journal Reference:
- Ajay S. Behl,
Katrina A. B. Goddard,
Thomas J. Flottemesch,
David Veenstra,
Richard T. Meenan,
Jennifer S. Lin,
and Michael V. Maciosek. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for KRAS and BRAF Mutations in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, Nov 28, 2012 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs433
Note: If no author is given, a source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: This essay is not dictated to yield medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views voiced here do not indispensably simulate those of ScienceDaily or a staff.
More on: Health Medicine Network