Breast carcinoma is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world. The hereditary forms, which amount from 5 to 10% of all the cases of breast cancer, mainly involve BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Due to the diagnostic strategy used by the patent owner, Direct DNA sequencing (DS) may become the only BRCA1/2 test procedure available, although there exist several alternative strategies. A cost-effectiveness study was carried out using BRCA1 testing as a model. The main techniques available for performing mutation searches were assessed: DS, denaturing high performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC), single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP), denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE), heteroduplex analysis (HA), fluorescent assisted mismatch analysis (FAMA) and the protein truncation test (PTT). Twenty strategies involving the use of one or more techniques were then devised for performing the complete genetic analysis. DS was adopted as the 'gold standard' for effectiveness. All the strategies except for DS involved a two-step procedure. The first step consisted of pre-screening the 22 coding exons of BRCA1. The second step consisted of performing DS only on the variations detected in the coding sequence. The cost of the strategies tested, including a pre-screening stage, turned out to be 30 to 90% lower than that of DS, whatever annual use was made of the equipment. The most cost-effective strategy, ie, that corresponding to the lowest cost per mutation detected, was found to be a combination between PTT on exon 11 (60% of the coding sequence) and HA on the remaining 21 exons (PTT 11 + HA 21 ). However, since a high false negative rate is associated with this strategy, at least four other strategies are worth mentioning: PTT 11 + DHPLC 21 , DHPLC alone, FAMA 11 + DHPLC 21 and FAMA alone. Our results on genetic testing for breast cancer show that DS is not the most cost-effective method available. The monopolist approach of the firm which owns the patents on the BRCA1/2 genes, may, therefore limit the use of the most cost-effective strategies.

Objective: To conduct a survey in seven European cancer genetics centres to compare service provision, organisation and practices for familial breast and colon cancer consultations and testing. Information was obtained on aspects of services both nationally and locally. Methods: A detailed survey questionnaire was adapted collaboratively to obtain the required information. Initial survey data were collected within each centre and interim results were discussed at two European Workshops. Where differences in practice existed, details were clarified to ensure accuracy and adequacy of information. Participating centres were Haifa (Israel), Hannover (Germany), Leiden (The Netherlands), Leuven (Belgium), Manchester (UK), Marseille (France) and Milan (Italy), representing countries with populations ranging from 6.5 to 80 million. Results: The European countries diverged in regard to the number of cancer genetics centres nationally (from 8 in Belgium to 37 in France), and the average population served by each centre (from 0.59 million in Israel to 3.32 million in Italy). All centres offered free care at the point of access, but referral to specialist care varied according to national health care provision. At a centre level, staff roles varied due to differences in training and health care provision. The annual number of counsellees seen in each participating centre ranged from 200 to over 1,700. Access to breast surveillance or bowel screening varied between countries, again reflecting differences in medical care pathways. These countries converged in regard to the wide availability of professional bodies and published guidelines promoting aspects of service provision. Similarities between centres included provision of a multidisciplinary team, with access to psychological support, albeit with varying degrees of integration. All services were dominated (70–90%) by referrals from families with an increased risk of breast cancer despite wide variation in referral patterns. Collection of pedigree data and risk assessment strategies were broadly similar, and centres used comparable genetic testing protocols. Average consultation times ranged between 45 and 90 min. All centres had access to a laboratory offering DNA testing for breast and bowel cancer-predisposing genes, although testing rates varied, reflecting the stage of service development and the type of population. Israel offered the highest number of genetic tests for breast cancer susceptibility because of the existence of specific founder mutations, in part explaining why the cancer genetics service in Haifa differed most from the other six. Conclusion: Despite considerable differences in service organisation, there were broad similarities in the provision of cancer genetic services in the centres surveyed.

Results suggest that gene patents with a very broad scope, covering all potential medical applications, may prevent health care systems from identifying and adopting the most efficient genetic testing strategies due to the monopoly granted for the exploitation of the gene. Policy implications for regulatory authorities, in the current context of the extension of BRCA1/2 patents in other countries, are discussed.