Cost-effective interventions for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer: new results from WHO-CHOICE

Background: Following the adoption of the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of NCDs 2013-2020, an update to the Appendix 3 of the action plan was requested by Member States in 2016, endorsed by the Seventieth World Health Assembly in May 2017 and provides a list of recommended NCD interventions. The main contribution of this paper is to present results of analyses identifying how decision makers can achieve maximum health gain using the cancer interventions listed in the Appendix 3. We also present methods used to calculate new WHO-CHOICE cost-effectiveness results for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer in Southeast Asia and eastern sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: We used "Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis" for our analysis which uses a hypothetical null reference case, where the impacts of all current interventions are removed, in order to identify the optimal package of interventions. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included. Health outcomes are reported as the gain in healthy life years due to a specific intervention scenario and were estimated using a deterministic state-transition cohort simulation (Markov model). Results: Vaccination against human papillomavirus (two doses) for 9-13-year-old girls (in eastern sub-Saharan Africa) and HPV vaccination combined with prevention of cervical cancer by screening of women aged 30-49 years through visual inspection with acetic acid linked with timely treatment of pre-cancerous lesions (in Southeast Asia) were found to be the most cost effective interventions. For breast cancer, in both regions the treatment of breast cancer, stages I and II, with surgery ± systemic therapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. For colorectal cancer, treatment of colorectal cancer, stages I and II, with surgery ± chemotherapy and radiotherapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that cancer prevention and control interventions are cost-effective and can be implemented through a step-wise approach to achieve maximum health benefits. As the global community moves toward universal health coverage, this analysis can support decision makers in identifying a core package of cancer services, ensuring treatment and palliative care for all

Somatic Mutations in TSC1 and TSC2 Cause Focal Cortical Dysplasia

Focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) is a major cause of the sporadic form of intractable focal epilepsies that require surgical treatment. It has recently been reported that brain somatic mutations in MTOR account for 15%–25% of FCD type II (FCDII), characterized by cortical dyslamination and dysmorphic neurons. However, the genetic etiologies of FCDII-affected individuals who lack the MTOR mutation remain unclear. Here, we performed deep hybrid capture and amplicon sequencing (read depth of 100×–20,012×) of five important mTOR pathway genes—PIK3CA, PIK3R2, AKT3, TSC1, and TSC2—by using paired brain and saliva samples from 40 FCDII individuals negative for MTOR mutations. We found that 5 of 40 individuals (12.5%) had brain somatic mutations in TSC1 (c.64C>T [p.Arg22Trp] and c.610C>T [p.Arg204Cys]) and TSC2 (c.4639G>A [p.Val1547Ile]), and these results were reproducible on two different sequencing platforms. All identified mutations induced hyperactivation of the mTOR pathway by disrupting the formation or function of the TSC1-TSC2 complex. Furthermore, in utero CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing of Tsc1 or Tsc2 induced the development of spontaneous behavioral seizures, as well as cytomegalic neurons and cortical dyslamination. These results show that brain somatic mutations in TSC1 and TSC2 cause FCD and that in utero application of the CRISPR-Cas9 system is useful for generating neurodevelopmental disease models of somatic mutations in the brain. © 2017 American Society of Human Genetic113141sciescopu

The cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing in substance abuse treatment: Results of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: The President’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy calls for coupling HIV screening and prevention services with substance abuse treatment programs. Fewer than half of US community-based substance abuse treatment programs make HIV testing available on-site or through referral. METHODS: We measured the cost-effectiveness of three HIV testing strategies evaluated in a randomized trial conducted in 12 community-based substance abuse treatment programs in 2009: off-site testing referral, on-site rapid testing with information only, on-site rapid testing with risk reduction counseling. Data from the trial included patient demographics, prior testing history, test acceptance and receipt of results, undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.4%) and program costs. The Cost Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) computer simulation model was used to project life expectancy, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for HIV-infected individuals. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2009 US $/QALY) were calculated after adding costs of testing HIV-uninfected individuals; costs and QALYs were discounted at 3$60,300/QALY in the base case, or $76,300/QALY with 0.1$36 per person more without additional benefit. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of on-site rapid HIV testing offer with information only in substance abuse treatment programs increases life expectancy at a cost-effectiveness ratio <$100,000/QALY. Policymakers and substance abuse treatment leaders should seek funding to implement on-site rapid HIV testing in substance abuse treatment programs for those not recently tested