Search

The article "Questioning Conclusions and Statements on the German HTA System: A Critical Perspective" by Oriol Sola‐Morales et al. provides insights on health technology assessments (HTA) in Germany, emphasizing the importance of early engagement with agencies, addressing missing data, and selecting real‐world endpoints. The analysis criticizes inaccuracies and omissions in G‐BA assessments, highlighting discrepancies between IQWiG and G‐BA ratings for certain drugs. The article also discusses the differences in incorporating real-world evidence (RWE) between G‐BA and NICE, noting NICE's higher acceptance rate of RWE for reimbursement recommendations. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives. Patients with early-stage HR+/HER2- N0 breast cancer may receive adjuvant chemotherapy in combination with surgery. However, chemotherapy does not always lead to improved survival and incurs high healthcare costs and increased adverse events. To support decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy, genomic profile testing performed with tests such as the Oncotype DX® test can help healthcare practitioners decide whether chemotherapy provides any benefit to these patients. As such, a cost-consequence model was developed with the aim to estimate the economic impact of using different gene expression tests or no testing, in patients with node-negative early-stage breast cancer. Methods. A cost-consequence model was developed to estimate the economic impact of three different scenarios in the Dutch setting: (1) Oncotype DX® test, (2) MammaPrint®, and (3) and no genomic profile testing. The model included chemotherapy costs, administration costs, short- and long-term adverse event costs, productivity loss, genomic profiling testing costs, cost of cancer recurrence, and hospitalization costs. Results. A treatment paradigm with Oncotype DX resulted in average savings per patient of €6,768 vs. a paradigm with MammaPrint and €13,125 vs. a paradigm with no genomic testing. Furthermore, due to less patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy through better targeting by the Oncotype DX test, fewer adverse events, sick days, practice visits, and hospitalizations were required compared to MammaPrint and no genomic profiling. Conclusions. Testing with Oncotype DX test in Dutch clinical practice in patients with early-stage breast cancer proved to be cost-saving versus MammaPrint and no genomic profiling tests. Introducing the Oncotype DX test to the Dutch setting will likely reduce the economic resources that are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]