Citations

BACKGROUNDFluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests are commonly used to assess human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) status of tumors in patients with breast cancer. This analysis evaluates the likely cost‐effectiveness of expanded retesting to assess HER2 tumor status in women with early stage breast cancer.METHODSWe developed a decision‐analytic model to estimate the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of expanded reflex testing from a US payer perspective. Expanded reflex testing is defined as retesting tumor specimens from patients whose tumors are IHC0, IHC1+, or FISH‐negative on their first test. In the base case, we assumed that 80% of patient tumors are initially IHC‐tested and 20% are FISH‐tested. Testing outcomes for IHC and FISH with and without retesting were based on published meta‐analyses. The cost of tests and treatment and the long‐term health outcomes were obtained from the literature.RESULTSIn the base case, we estimated that 2.27% of women who received expanded reflex testing would be HER2‐positive and receive trastuzumab treatment: the projected ICER was $36,721 per life year or $39,745 per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY). This varied between $47,100 per QALY and $35,500 per QALY if we assumed that 1%‐8% of patients retested were then HER2+, respectively. The results of deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were robust. This strategy would result in 4700 (2000‐17,000) patients being eligible to receive trastuzumab treatment annually.CONCLUSIONSRetesting patients who are IHC0, IHC1+, or FISH‐negative is projected to be a cost‐effective clinical strategy. Cancer 2013;119:3113–3122. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Background— Postmarket medical device surveillance in the United States depends largely on voluntary reporting of adverse events. Consequently, early safety signals may be missed, exposing patients to potentially hazardous products. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using an automated safety surveillance tool to detect early signals that a marketed implantable cardiac device was underperforming. Methods and Results— For this purpose, we performed simulated prospective monthly full-cohort and propensity-matched comparative survival analyses on our 3-center database of Sprint Fidelis and Quattro Secure implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads, using a commercially available automated surveillance tool that was preset to trigger an alert if the log rank probability value was <0.05. During the study, 84 of 1035 Fidelis (8.1%) and 23 of 1675 Quattro (1.4%) leads failed. The simulated full-cohort analysis triggered a sustained alert for Fidelis leads beginning 13 months after the first implant and 2 years before Fidelis leads were removed from the market. Of the 1035 patients who had Fidelis leads, up to 969 (93.6%) were successfully matched to Quattro patients. In the propensity-matched analysis, the alert triggered 22 months after the first Fidelis implant and more than 1 year before the lead was recalled. Conclusions— An active automated safety surveillance system could have identified this implantable cardiovascular device problem substantially sooner than was achieved through existing postmarket surveillance methods. Such a tool, when applied to clinical registries and remote monitoring databases, may limit the exposure of large populations to underperforming and potentially hazardous cardiovascular devices.