Economic Impact of Increased Utilization of Multivariate Assay Testing to Guide the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer:...

Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer among women, but ranks fifth in cancer-related causes of death, the majority of which are detected in late stages, after the cancer has metastasized. The CA125 test is the standard of care for assessing suspicious pelvic masses. However, the primary use of CA125 is to monitor treatment progress rather than to screen for disease, and its sensitivity is exceedingly low, unlike the multivariate assay OVA1. A cost-effective treatment of ovarian cancer requires early and accurate diagnosis of pelvic masses and reduced referrals of patients with benign tumors to a gynecologic oncologist.

To analyze the economic impact of increased utilization of a multivariate assay, such as OVA1, to guide the treatment of ovarian cancer.

The study population was drawn from Medicare and commercial health plan claims data. A budget impact model was constructed to estimate the economic consequences of substituting the multivariate assay OVA1 to replace the single biomarker assay CA125 to assess the likelihood of pelvic mass malignancy in premenopausal and/or postmenopausal women. All patients selected for the analysis had CA125 testing before surgical intervention.

A total of 92,843 health plan members were included for analysis, comprising 48,113 commercially insured members and 44,730 Medicare beneficiaries. Estimates of future health plan expenditures, which were calculated from base-case assumptions, projected overall savings of $0.05 per-member per-month (PMPM) for commercially insured members and $0.01 PMPM for Medicare beneficiaries as a result of increased utilization of OVA1. Sensitivity analysis revealed potential savings of up to $0.17 PMPM for commercially insured patients and up to $0.05 for Medicare beneficiaries.

The results of the budget impact model support the use of OVA1 instead of CA125 by indicating that modest cost-savings can be achieved, while reaping the clinical benefits of improved diagnostic accuracy, early disease detection, and reductions in multiple, and possibly unnecessary, referrals to gynecologic oncologists.