Protocol for a Prospective, Observational Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Returning Secondary Findings of Genome Sequencing for Unexplained Suspected Genetic Conditions

Purpose: Although costly, genome-wide sequencing (GWS) detects an extensive range of variants, enhancing our ability to diagnose and assess risk for an increasing number of diseases. In addition to detecting variants related to the indication for testing, GWS can detect secondary variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and other genes for which early intervention may improve health. As the list of secondary findings grows, there is increased demand for surveillance and management by multiple specialists, adding pressure to constrained health care budgets. Secondary finding testing is actively debated because some consider it opportunistic screening for future health risks that may not manifest. Given the economic implications of secondary finding testing and follow-up and its unproven clinical utility, the objective is to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of secondary finding ascertainment per case detected and per unit of improved clinical utility in families of children with unexplained suspected genetic conditions undergoing clinical GWS.

Methods: Those undergoing trio genome or exome sequencing are eligible for the study. Positive secondary finding index cases will be matched to negative controls (1:2) based on age group, primary result(s) type, and clinical indication. During the 2-year study, 71 cases and 142 matched controls are expected. Health service use will be collected in patients and 1 adult family member every 6 months. The per-child and per-dyad total cost will be determined by multiplying use of each resource by a corresponding unit price and summing all cost items. Costs will be estimated from the public and societal payer perspectives. The mean cost per child and per dyad for secondary finding-positive and secondary finding-negative groups will be compared statistically. If important demographic differences are observed between groups, ordinary least-squares regression, log transformation, or other nonparametric technique will be used to compare adjusted mean costs. The ratio of the difference in mean cost to the secondary finding yield will be used to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness. In secondary analyses, effectiveness will be estimated using the number of clinical management changes due to secondary findings or the Clinician-Reported Genetic Testing Utility Index (C-GUIDE) score, a validated measure of clinical utility. Sensitivity analysis will be undertaken to assess the robustness of the findings to variation in key parameters.

Implications: This study generates key evidence to inform clinical practice and funding allocation related to secondary finding testing. The inclusion of family members and a new measure of clinical utility represent important advancements in economic evaluation in genomics.