Does BREVAGenplus Really Make a Difference?

I had a somewhat mixed reaction to Genetic Technologies’ (ASX : GTG) recent, rather breathless update about the progress of its BREVAGenplus breast cancer risk test (the product website is worth a read for basic background). There can be little doubt that we are entering the era of genetic testing in order to improve the economics of healthcare through better decision-making. While there are plenty of risks and ethical issues to still be ironed out, there are also plenty of potential benefits if we can get it right.

It has taken me a while to look past GTG’s rather underwhelming and mostly rubbish past to try to understand and convince myself that there is something of real clinical credibility here. It wasn’t much helped by their recent highly-technical and jargonish paper (full text available) that, while probably containing some very interesting analysis, imparts few clearly discernible messages for someone that doesn’t have a Ph.D in biostatistics. After a few reads, I came to the conclusion that this soundbite (on page 587) is probably the most important:

For each of the risk prediction models, the combined risk score resulted in approximately 40 % of African American cases moving into a higher risk category and approximately 10 % of controls moving into a lower risk category. For Hispanics, over 20 % of cases moved into a higher risk category, and 6 % of controls moved into a lower risk category when using BCRAT and 17 % when using IBIS. These values are higher than the two previous studies of Caucasian cohorts which identified between 3 and 10 % of cases moving to a higher risk category.

Followed by :

The AUC value for BCRAT obtained for Hispanic women is lower than that previously reported [8]. Whilst the IBIS model is widely used across ethnicities in the US it has only been validated for Caucasian populations [22], and both the ORs and AUC derived here for the model alone are low for both African American and Hispanic women. For the present analysis, information was not available for second degree relatives or for family history of ovarian cancer and it is not immediately clear whether this has impacted on the IBIS model performance. In addition to ethnicity differences and reduced pedigree inputs, the low values may reflect that IBIS was developed using data from studies of predominately postmenopausal women and is intended for use with high-risk populations.

Did they really use the word “pedigree” here? Hmmmm…

The problem is that the library of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or “genetic mutations” that form the basis of the BREVAGenplus test have almost entirely been identified from Caucasian (i.e. white) women with breast cancer. Moreover, the risk predictor tests that are made more “discriminatory” by the BREVAGenplus test are also, on the whole, most validated in Caucasian (i.e. white) women with breast cancer. Therefore, although the fact that the SNP panel appears to confer some discriminatory benefit on the standard models of breast cancer risk, there is really very little evidence at this stage that the BREVAGenplus test is going to confer benefit on African and Hispanic women (i.e. non-white women), including reclassification to a higher risk category.

In fact I would argue from an ethics vantage that if a “diagnostic” test, without any meaningful genetic basis in minority patient populations, results in a % of women in minority populations to be reclassified as lower risk (and therefore potentially ineligible for augmented screening), then this test should be strenuously avoided. Why? Because it means that populations of women that are already underserved could be yet further marginalised, without a fully validated reason for it. By simply calibrating a “white” breast cancer risk score (using “white” genetic profiling no less) I don’t think we do anything positive for these women at all, and in fact it might be a dangerous reason for our already socio-economically biased healthcare systems to spend even less on these patient populations.

And therein lies the rub.

My personal interpretation of all of this malarkey is that the purpose of this exercise is really to eliminate an implied racial ineligibility for the BREVAGenplus test. This isn’t so much about increasing the market opportunity for the test, which is what our asinine market apparently thought by giving the “reward” of a bump in GTG’s stock price. Rather it is about removing a potentially racially polarising label for the product. Nothing damages marketability more than a product indication for a breast cancer test that reads “this product is not suitable for women of African or Hispanic origin.” I realise this is not a terribly positive interpretation, but it is really the only substantiated one.

At the end of the day, GTG talks a lot about physicians doing “good” for patients but it is measurable patient outcomes and healthcare reimbursement that matters (with paltry revenues and no specific reimbursement angle, let’s just ignore commercial success for the moment). For lack of actual genetic profiling in African/Hispanic patient populations, GTG has done the next best thing to make sure that its product has the broadest possible applicability, and that’s fine. But in doing so it may actually do its bit to ensure that fewer already underserved women get access to more advanced forms of screening.

Oh, and until BREVAGenplus gets properly reimbursed (i.e. not under a catch-all “misc” code), some people are going to have to pay for the test out of pocket. This is also less likely to happen in poorer “minority” populations.

It’s kind of a can of worms.

3 thoughts on “Does BREVAGenplus Really Make a Difference?

  1. I agree that it opens a can of worms in a way,and you make some interesting points in terms of ethnic groups who don’t have the relevant marker and won’t benefit from the test.I think as genetics testing becomes more advanced we will continue to find markers that are more prevalent in one ethnic group than another,which simply reflects that the populations developed independently until recently,and subsequently there are different genetic characteristics,one of course being skin colour.
    There are already many diseases we know affect one ethnicity more than others ,think of sickle cell anaemia … we’re going to see more and more of this as we gain the ability to drill down into the genetic level and see things we couldn’t see before.
    Are we going to avoid any advancement that may favour (statistically) one ethnicity from another?Are we going to stop funding melanoma research because Caucasians get skin cancer more than non-Caucasians,and it isn’t fair to spend money on a disease that doesn’t affect all ethnicities equally… ?
    Do we hold back on any medical advancement until the socio-economic conditions are perfectly balanced between the ethnic groups until we release new treatments?
    I think over time technology and scale will solve these questions for us,as the tools and techniques we use to look for markers and study interactions become cheaper,easier to use and more reliable,more samples from a wider variety of ethnicities will be used for development,naturally leading to quicker discoveries and quicker treatments that will even things out (statistically) for the different populations.

    This might seem a bit off topic,but the main problem for healthcare accessibility as I see it is healthcare technology pricing.The higher the prices,the less people can access it ,the lower the prices the more accessible it is.
    The payment and pricing system for healthcare technology is fundamentally flawed, keeping prices artificially high ,hindering pricing competition (reduced accessibility) and innovation(new treatments).The prices that drug and device companies receive for their so called innovations are unjustified.Most claimed innovations aren’t innovative,just knock-off’s of someone else’s technology.Look at the TNF space (arthritis,Crohn’s and others), how many anti-TNFa antibodies do you really need?…(Wiki says there are 8),most being designed just to get around another companies patents and target the same molecule to treat the same diseases,yet somehow this extra competition doesn’t bring prices down (making it more accessible).Worldwide Abbot alone pulled in over US$10bil in anti-TNFa sales in 2013…(Australia’s total PBS spend for FY13 was only $AU9 bil) and this for a class of drug which doesn’t cure anything and usually stops working within 5 years…the perfect drug infact – spending shareholder funds on a cure would almost be unlawful….
    To make healthcare more broadly accessible to all the socio-economic groups,focus on the payment and pricing system in the West,it’s broken and incentivises the major companies to keep reinventing the (really expensive) wheel,sucking up phenomenal amounts of healthcare cash like a parasitic leech,stopping that cash from being used to treat more people and more diseases.


Say something useful (or at least interesting)...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s