Table 21:
Reference Case Analysis Results, Prosigna Versus Usual Care
| Strategy | Mean Total Cost, $ (95% CrI) | Mean Incremental Cost, $ (95% CrI) | Mean Life Years (95% CrI) | Mean Life Years Gained (95% CrI) | Mean QALYs (95% CrI) | Mean Incremental QALYs (95% CrI) | ICER, $/QALY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Usual carea | 46,960 (44,854–49,326) | — | 19.81 (19.17–20.40) | — | 15.33 (14.50–16.13) | — | — |
| Prosigna | 46,630 (44,522–48,874) | −331 (−1,209 to 463) | 19.99 (19.40–20.54) | 0.18 (0.09–0.31) | 15.48 (14.67–16.28) | 0.15 (0.08–0.26) | Dominantb |
Abbreviations: CrI, credible interval; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY, quality-adjusted life-years.
a
Reference group. Usual care for Prosigna represents the cost and outcomes for the study population in the TransATAC study,52 if they had not received Prosigna.
b
Less costly and more effective than usual care.