Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Pigmented Lesion Assay When Introduced Into the Visual Assessment / Histopathology Pathway for Lesions Clinically Suspicious for Melanoma

Main Article Content

Daniel Siegel
Christopher Murphy
Kent Wangsness
Allyson Perry
Ian Smith

Keywords

melanoma, gene expression profiling

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the potential savings to health plans when the Pigmented Lesion Assay
(PLA) is incorporated into the assessment of pigmented lesions clinically suspicious for
melanoma.
Methods: A Return on Investment (ROI) model was developed from a US payor perspective to
determine the per member per month (PMPM) net savings impact of incorporating PLA into the
visual assessment/histopathology (VAH) pathway. Using 2019 claims data for patients with
lesions suspicious for melanoma (N=239,854), use of PLA in year 1 was modeled and followed
through subsequent years. Costs were assessed through the pathway of initial visual assessment,
surgical procedure(s), histopathology, and subsequent management.
Results: The ROI model predicted annual net savings of $0.54 PMPM for commercial health
plans over a three-year period. In this analysis, 95.7% of surgically assessed lesions clinically
suspicious for melanoma were diagnosed as benign, with 30.4% of patients with benign lesions
undergoing a more advanced procedure (e.g., excision). Melanoma diagnosis rates associated
with biopsy only, excision only, and biopsy followed by excision procedures in the VAH
pathway were 0.7%, 1.1%, and 18.0%, respectively.
Conclusion: Incorporation of the PLA into the VAH pathway for assessing
suspicious pigmented lesions results in savings for commercial health insurance plans. Use of the
PLA improves patient care by using genomic assessments to minimize avoidable surgical
procedures on benign lesions, enrich the population of melanomas diagnosed, and decrease
downstream costs of late-stage melanoma diagnoses.

References

1. Swetter SM, Tsao H, Bichakjian CK, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of
primary cutaneous melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jan 2019;80(1):208-250.
doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.08.055

2. Babino G, Lallas A, Agozzino M, et al. Melanoma diagnosed on digital dermoscopy
monitoring: A side-by-side image comparison is needed to improve early detection. J Am Acad
Dermatol. Sep 2021;85(3):619-625. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.013

3. Elmore JG, Barnhill RL, Elder DE, et al. Pathologists' diagnosis of invasive melanoma
and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study. BMJ. Jun 28
2017;357:j2813. doi:10.1136/bmj.j2813

4. Urso C, Rongioletti F, Innocenzi D, et al. Histological features used in the diagnosis of
melanoma are frequently found in benign melanocytic naevi. J Clin Pathol. Apr 2005;58(4):409-
12. doi:10.1136/jcp.2004.020933

5. Hornberger J, Siegel DM. Economic Analysis of a Noninvasive Molecular Pathologic
Assay for Pigmented Skin Lesions. JAMA Dermatol. Sep 1 2018;154(9):1025-1031.
doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.1764

6. Ferris LK, Gerami P, Skelsey MK, et al. Real-world performance and utility of a
noninvasive gene expression assay to evaluate melanoma risk in pigmented lesions. Melanoma
Res. Oct 2018;28(5):478-482. doi:10.1097/CMR.0000000000000478

7. Malvehy J, Hauschild A, Curiel-Lewandrowski C, et al. Clinical performance of the
Nevisense system in cutaneous melanoma detection: an international, multicentre, prospective
and blinded clinical trial on efficacy and safety. Br J Dermatol. Nov 2014;171(5):1099-107.
doi:10.1111/bjd.13121

8. Gerami P, Yao Z, Polsky D, et al. Development and validation of a noninvasive 2-gene
molecular assay for cutaneous melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jan 2017;76(1):114-120 e2.
doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.07.038

9. Yao Z, Allen T, Oakley M, Samons C, Garrison D, Jansen B. Analytical Characteristics
of a Noninvasive Gene Expression Assay for Pigmented Skin Lesions. Assay Drug Dev Technol.
Aug 2016;14(6):355-63. doi:10.1089/adt.2016.724

10. Yao Z, Moy R, Allen T, Jansen B. An Adhesive Patch-Based Skin Biopsy Device for
Molecular Diagnostics and Skin Microbiome Studies. J Drugs Dermatol. Oct 1
2017;16(10):979-986.

11. Brouha B, Ferris L, Skelsey M, et al. Genomic Atypia to Enrich Melanoma Positivity in
Biopsied Lesions: Gene Expression and Pathology Findings From a Large U.S. Registry Study.
SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. 2021;5(1):13-18.

12. Lott JP, Elmore JG, Zhao GA, et al. Evaluation of the Melanocytic Pathology
Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) classification scheme for diagnosis
of cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms: Results from the International Melanoma Pathology Study
Group. J Am Acad Dermatol. Aug 2016;75(2):356-63. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.04.052

13. Jackson SR, Jansen B, Yao Z, Ferris LK. Risk Stratification of Severely Dysplastic Nevi
by Non-Invasively Obtained Gene Expression and Mutation Analyses. SKIN The Journal of
Cutaneous Medicine. 2020;4(2):105-110.

14. Ferris LK, Jansen B, Ho J, et al. Utility of a Noninvasive 2-Gene Molecular Assay for
Cutaneous Melanoma and Effect on the Decision to Biopsy. JAMA Dermatol. Jul 1
2017;153(7):675-680. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.0473

15. Brouha B, Ferris L, Skelsey M, et al. Real-World Utility of a Non-Invasive Gene
Expression Test to Rule Out Primary Cutaneous Melanoma: A Large US Registry Study. Journal
of Drugs in Dermatology. 2020;19(3):257-262. doi:10.36849/jdd.2020.4766

16. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines
in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Melanoma: Cutaneous. Version 1.2022. National
Comprehensive Cancer Network. Updated December 3, 2021.

17. Skelsey M, Brouha B, Rock J, et al. Non-Invasive Detection of Genomic Atypia
Increases Real-World NPV and PPV of the Melanoma Diagnostic Pathway and Reduces Biopsy
Burden. SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. 2021;5(5):512-523.

18. Optum, Inc. Commercial Claims Data, January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019.

19. Optum, Inc. Commercial Claims Data, January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019.
20. U.S. Department of the Treasury.

21. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services
Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2016;316(4):429-435.
doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8465

22. Liu W, Dowling JP, Murray WK, et al. Rate of growth in melanomas: characteristics and
associations of rapidly growing melanomas. Arch Dermatol. Dec 2006;142(12):1551-8.
doi:10.1001/archderm.142.12.1551

23. Tejera-Vaquerizo A, Nagore E, Melendez JJ, et al. Chronology of metastasis in cutaneous
melanoma: growth rate model. J Invest Dermatol. Apr 2012;132(4):1215-21.
doi:10.1038/jid.2011.433

24. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule Files.
https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-

Payment/ClinicalLabFeeSched/Clinical-Laboratory-Fee-Schedule-Files. Accessed December 16,
2021.
25. Puglisi R, Bellenghi M, Pontecorvi G, Pallante G, Care A, Mattia G. Biomarkers for
Diagnosis, Prognosis and Response to Immunotherapy in Melanoma. Cancers (Basel). Jun 9
2021;13(12)doi:10.3390/cancers13122875

26. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Policy 2.04.146.

27. Data on file. DermTech, Inc. La Jolla, California.

28. Optum, Inc. Commercial Claims Data, January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020.

Similar Articles

<< < 1 2 3 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.