Table 4

Summary of important one-and two way sensitivity analysesa
Interpretation of the incremental impact of the RS-assay compared to CCP
Variable (range tested) Negative cost and effect Cost saving ICER in the range ICER in the range ICER in the range Dominated
0 to 20,000 $/QALY gained 20,000 to 100,000 $/QALY gained >100,000 $/QALY gained
Chemotherapy treated women in intermediate risk group by the RS-assay (0% to 100%) 0% to 42% 43% to 63% 64% to 100%
Change in absolute risk of relapseb in the RS-assay model (−10% to +10%) > +1.8% ≤ +1.8%
Change in utility of recurrencec (−10% to +10%) Lower limit cost of recurrencec ≤ +2.2% +2.3% to +3.4% +3.5% to +4% ≥ +4%
Baseline cost of recurrencec > +3% ≤ +3%
Upper limit cost of recurrencec > +3% ≤ +3%
Change in utility following adjuvant chemotherapy (−10% to +10%) > +1% ≤ +1%

CMF = 6 cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil; AC = 4 cycles of adriamycin, cyclophosphamide; CCP = current clinical practice.

a Values in the table show how the incremental impact of the RS-assay compared to CCP changes, over 6 significant ranges, depending on the values of certain key parameters. For example, if between 43-63% of women identified as intermediate risk by the RS-assay were to receive chemotherapy, then the RS-assay would be cost saving relative to CCP; if this proportion is 64% or greater, then the RS-assay has an ICER between 0 and $20,000 / QALY gained.

b Relapse includes loco-regional recurrence, distant recurrence and death due to any cause.

c Recurrence includes loco-regional and distant recurrences.

Hannouf et al.

Hannouf et al. BMC Cancer 2012 12:447   doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-447

Open Data