Supplementary data: A real-world comparison of the clinical and economic utility of OVA1 and CA125 in assessing ovarian tumor malignancy risk

dataset

posted on 2024-04-15, 12:41 authored by Gerard P. Reilly, David A. Gregory, Dennis Scotti, Samuel Lederman, Wade Neiman, Steven Sussman, Lisa Bean, Mercedes Ekono

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'A real-world comparison of the clinical and economic utility of OVA1 and CA125 in assessing ovarian tumor malignancy risk' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Appendix Table 1: Coding

Aim: This largest-of-its-kind study evaluated the clinical utility of CA125 and OVA1, commonly used as ovarian tumor markers for assessing the risk of malignancy. The research focused on the ability and utility of these tests to reliably predict patients at low risk for ovarian cancer. Clinical utility endpoints were 12-monthmaintenance of benign mass status, reduction in gynecologic oncologist referral, avoidable surgical intervention and associated cost savings. Materials & methods: This was a multicenter retrospective review of data from electronic medical records and administrative claims databases. Patients receiving a CA125 or OVA1 test between October 2018 and September 2020 were identified and followed for 12 months using site-specific electronic medical records to assess tumor status and utilization outcomes. Propensity score adjustment was used to control for confounding variables. Payer allowed amounts from Merative MarketScan Research Databases were used to estimate 12-month episode-of-care costs per patient, including surgery and other interventions. Results: Among 290 low-risk OVA1 patients, 99.0% remained benign for 12 months compared with 97.2% of 181 low-risk CA125 patients. The OVA1 cohort exhibited 75% lower odds of surgical intervention in the overall sample of patients (Adjusted OR: 0.251, p ≤ 0.0001), and 63% lower odds of gynecologic oncologist utilization among premenopausal women (Adjusted OR: 0.37, p = 0.0390) versus CA125. OVA1 demonstrated significant savings in surgical interventions ($2486, p ≤ 0.0001) and total episode-of-care costs ($2621, p ≤ 0.0001) versus CA125. Conclusion: This study underscores the utility of a reliably predictive multivariate assay for assessing ovarian cancer risk. For patients assessed at low risk of ovarian tumor malignancy, OVA1 is associated with a significant reduction in avoidable surgeries and substantial cost savings per patient. OVA1 is also associated with a significant reduction in subspecialty referrals for low-risk premenopausal patients.