Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator

Overview

Journal Oncologist

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Oncology

Date 2023 Mar 24

PMID 36961477

Authors

Albrecht Stenzinger

Brian Cuffel

Noman Paracha

Eric Vail

Jesus Garcia-Foncillas

Clifford Goodman

Ulrik Lassen

Gilles Vassal

Sean D Sullivan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Adoption of high-throughput, gene panel-based, next-generation sequencing (NGS) into routine cancer care is widely supported, but hampered by concerns about cost. To inform policies regarding genomic testing strategies, we propose a simple metric, cost per correctly identified patient (CCIP), that compares sequential single-gene testing (SGT) vs. multiplex NGS in different tumor types.

Materials And Methods: A genomic testing cost calculator was developed based on clinically actionable genomic alterations identified in the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets. Using sensitivity/specificity data for SGTs (immunohistochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, and fluorescence in situ hybridization) and NGS and marker prevalence, the number needed to predict metric was monetarized to estimate CCIP.

Results: At base case, CCIP was lower with NGS than sequential SGT for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, colorectal, gastric cancers, and cholangiocarcinoma. CCIP with NGS was also favorable for squamous NSCLC, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers, but with overlapping confidence intervals. CCIP favored SGT for prostate cancer. Alternate scenarios using different price estimates for each test showed similar trends, but with incremental changes in the magnitude of difference between NGS and SGT, depending on price estimates for each test.

Conclusions: The cost to correctly identify clinically actionable genomic alterations was lower for NGS than sequential SGT in most cancer types evaluated. Decreasing price estimates for NGS and the rapid expansion of targeted therapies and accompanying biomarkers are anticipated to further support NGS as a preferred diagnostic standard for precision oncology.

Citing Articles

Costs of biomarker testing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a global study comparing next-generation sequencing and single-gene testing.

Malapelle U, Chen C, de Alava E, Hofman P, Kazdal D, Kim T J Pathol Clin Res. 2025; 11(2):e70018.

PMID: 40052485 PMC: 11886603. DOI: 10.1002/2056-4538.70018.

Next step of molecular pathology: next-generation sequencing in cytology.

Silva R, Schmitt F J Pathol Transl Med. 2024; 58(6):291-298.

PMID: 39557410 PMC: 11573480. DOI: 10.4132/jptm.2024.10.22.

Economic assessment of NGS testing workflow for NSCLC in a healthcare setting.

Seminati D, LImperio V, Casati G, Ceku J, Pilla D, Scalia C Heliyon. 2024; 10(7):e29272.

PMID: 38617925 PMC: 11015456. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29272.

The Impact of Prior Single-Gene Testing on Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Results for Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Nesline M, Subbiah V, Previs R, Strickland K, Ko H, DePietro P Oncol Ther. 2024; 12(2):329-343.

PMID: 38502426 PMC: 11187032. DOI: 10.1007/s40487-024-00270-x.

Future perspective for the application of predictive biomarker testing in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.

de Jager V, Timens W, Bayle A, Botling J, Brcic L, Buttner R Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024; 38:100839.

PMID: 38476751 PMC: 10928270. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100839.

References

Linn S, Grunau P . New patient-oriented summary measure of net total gain in certainty for dichotomous diagnostic tests. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2006; 3:11. PMC: 1635036. DOI: 10.1186/1742-5573-3-11. View

Riaz N, Havel J, Makarov V, Desrichard A, Urba W, Sims J . Tumor and Microenvironment Evolution during Immunotherapy with Nivolumab. Cell. 2017; 171(4):934-949.e16. PMC: 5685550. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.028. View

Hillman R, Ward K, Saenz C, McHale M, Plaxe S . Barriers prevent patient access to personalized therapies identified by molecular tumor profiling of gynecologic malignancies. J Pers Med. 2015; 5(2):165-73. PMC: 4493494. DOI: 10.3390/jpm5020165. View

Milbury C, Creeden J, Yip W, Smith D, Pattani V, Maxwell K . Clinical and analytical validation of FoundationOne®CDx, a comprehensive genomic profiling assay for solid tumors. PLoS One. 2022; 17(3):e0264138. PMC: 8926248. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264138. View

Xie J, Lu X, Wu X, Lin X, Zhang C, Huang X . Capture-based next-generation sequencing reveals multiple actionable mutations in cancer patients failed in traditional testing. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2016; 4(3):262-72. PMC: 4867560. DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.201. View

Wu Y, Chang I, Wang C, Chen T, Chen Y, Liu H . Comparison of IHC, FISH and RT-PCR methods for detection of ALK rearrangements in 312 non-small cell lung cancer patients in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2013; 8(8):e70839. PMC: 3737393. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070839. View

Radonic T, Geurts-Giele W, Samsom K, Roemen G, von der Thusen J, Thunnissen E . RET Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Analysis Is a Sensitive but Highly Unspecific Screening Method for RET Fusions in Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2021; 16(5):798-806. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.01.1619. View

Bertucci F, Borie N, Ginestier C, Groulet A, Charafe-Jauffret E, Adelaide J . Identification and validation of an ERBB2 gene expression signature in breast cancers. Oncogene. 2004; 23(14):2564-75. DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207361. View

Lavacchi D, Roviello G, DAngelo A . Tumor-Agnostic Treatment for Cancer: When How is Better than Where. Clin Drug Investig. 2020; 40(6):519-527. DOI: 10.1007/s40261-020-00915-5. View

10.

Pishvaian M, Blais E, Brody J, Lyons E, DeArbeloa P, Hendifar A . Overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving matched therapies following molecular profiling: a retrospective analysis of the Know Your Tumor registry trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21(4):508-518. PMC: 7453743. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30074-7. View

11.

Davies K, Lomboy A, Lawrence C, Yourshaw M, Bocsi G, Camidge D . DNA-Based versus RNA-Based Detection of MET Exon 14 Skipping Events in Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2019; 14(4):737-741. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.12.020. View

12.

Horgan D, Curigliano G, Riess O, Hofman P, Buttner R, Conte P . Identifying the Steps Required to Effectively Implement Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology at a National Level in Europe. J Pers Med. 2022; 12(1). PMC: 8780351. DOI: 10.3390/jpm12010072. View

13.

Pruneri G, De Braud F, Sapino A, Aglietta M, Vecchione A, Giusti R . Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: Is It a Cost-Saving Alternative to a Single-Gene Testing Approach?. Pharmacoecon Open. 2021; 5(2):285-298. PMC: 8160052. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00249-0. View

14.

Beaubier N, Tell R, Lau D, Parsons J, Bush S, Perera J . Clinical validation of the tempus xT next-generation targeted oncology sequencing assay. Oncotarget. 2019; 10(24):2384-2396. PMC: 6481324. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.26797. View

15.

Hayes D . Defining Clinical Utility of Tumor Biomarker Tests: A Clinician's Viewpoint. J Clin Oncol. 2020; 39(3):238-248. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.20.01572. View

16.

Cabel L, Proudhon C, Romano E, Girard N, Lantz O, Stern M . Clinical potential of circulating tumour DNA in patients receiving anticancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018; 15(10):639-650. DOI: 10.1038/s41571-018-0074-3. View

17.

Takase Y, Usui K, Shimizu K, Kimura Y, Ichihara T, Ohkawa T . Highly sensitive detection of a HER2 12-base pair duplicated insertion mutation in lung cancer using the Eprobe-PCR method. PLoS One. 2017; 12(2):e0171225. PMC: 5289711. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171225. View

18.

Schluckebier L, Caetano R, Garay O, Montenegro G, Custodio M, Aran V . Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2020; 20(1):875. PMC: 7489015. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07240-2. View

19.

Liu L, Zhan P, Zhou X, Song Y, Zhou X, Yu L . Detection of EML4-ALK in lung adenocarcinoma using pleural effusion with FISH, IHC, and RT-PCR methods. PLoS One. 2015; 10(3):e0117032. PMC: 4364974. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117032. View

20.

Velizheva N, Rechsteiner M, Valtcheva N, Freiberger S, Wong C, Vrugt B . Targeted next-generation-sequencing for reliable detection of targetable rearrangements in lung adenocarcinoma-a single center retrospective study. Pathol Res Pract. 2018; 214(4):572-578. PMC: 5899763. DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2018.02.001. View