Table 5

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 savings 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%) 86% to 100% 42% to 85% 32% to 41% 0% to 31%
Change in absolute risk of relapseb in the RS-assay model (−10% to +10%) < −3% −3% to +0.9% +1% to +2% > +2%
Change in utility of recurrencec (−10% to +10%) Lower limit cost of recurrencec < +9% ≥ +9%
Baseline cost of recurrencec −10% to +10%
Upper limit cost of recurrencec −10% to +10%
Change in utility following adjuvant chemotherapy (−10% to +10%) > 4.5% −0.8% to +4.5% −2.4% to −0.9% ≤ −2.5%

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 42-85% of women identified as intermediate risk by the RS-assay were to receive chemotherapy, then the RS-assay has an ICER between $20,000 / QALY gained and $100,000 / QALY gained; if this proportion is between 32% and 41%, then the RS-assay has an ICER greater than $100,000 / 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