Kirsten J M van Nimwegen1, Ronald A van Soest2, Joris A Veltman2,3, Marcel R Nelen2, Gert Jan van der Wilt4, Lisenka E L M Vissers2, Janneke P C Grutters5. 1. Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center; kirsten.vannimwegen@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Human Genetics, Donders Centre for Neuroscience, and. 3. Department of Clinical Genetics, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 4. Department for Health Evidence, Donders Centre for Neuroscience, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 5. Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The substantial technological advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS), combined with dropping costs, have allowed for a swift diffusion of NGS applications in clinical settings. Although several commercial parties report to have broken the $1000 barrier for sequencing an entire human genome, a valid cost overview for NGS is currently lacking. This study provides a complete, transparent and up-to-date overview of the total costs of different NGS applications. METHODS: Cost calculations for targeted gene panels (TGP), whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) were based on the Illumina NextSeq500, HiSeq4000, and HiSeqX5 platforms, respectively. To anticipate future developments, sensitivity analyses are performed. RESULTS: Per-sample costs were €1669 for WGS, € 792 for WES and €333 for TGP. To reach the coveted $1000 genome, not only is the long-term and efficient use of the sequencing equipment needed, but also large reductions in capital costs and especially consumable costs are also required. CONCLUSIONS: WES and TGP are considerably lower-cost alternatives to WGS. However, this does not imply that these NGS approaches should be preferred in clinical practice, since this should be based on the tradeoff between costs and the expected clinical utility of the approach chosen. The results of the present study contribute to the evaluation of such tradeoffs.
BACKGROUND: The substantial technological advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS), combined with dropping costs, have allowed for a swift diffusion of NGS applications in clinical settings. Although several commercial parties report to have broken the $1000 barrier for sequencing an entire human genome, a valid cost overview for NGS is currently lacking. This study provides a complete, transparent and up-to-date overview of the total costs of different NGS applications. METHODS: Cost calculations for targeted gene panels (TGP), whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) were based on the Illumina NextSeq500, HiSeq4000, and HiSeqX5 platforms, respectively. To anticipate future developments, sensitivity analyses are performed. RESULTS: Per-sample costs were €1669 for WGS, € 792 for WES and €333 for TGP. To reach the coveted $1000 genome, not only is the long-term and efficient use of the sequencing equipment needed, but also large reductions in capital costs and especially consumable costs are also required. CONCLUSIONS: WES and TGP are considerably lower-cost alternatives to WGS. However, this does not imply that these NGS approaches should be preferred in clinical practice, since this should be based on the tradeoff between costs and the expected clinical utility of the approach chosen. The results of the present study contribute to the evaluation of such tradeoffs.
Authors: Alexander Rühle; Ramon Lopez Perez; Bingwen Zou; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Peter E Huber; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Stem Cell Rev Rep Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 5.739
Authors: I Borget; J Bonastre; Arnaud Bayle; N Droin; B Besse; Z Zou; Y Boursin; S Rissel; E Solary; L Lacroix; E Rouleau Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-03-25
Authors: Katherine C Kurnit; Ecaterina E Ileana Dumbrava; Beate Litzenburger; Yekaterina B Khotskaya; Amber M Johnson; Timothy A Yap; Jordi Rodon; Jia Zeng; Md Abu Shufean; Ann M Bailey; Nora S Sánchez; Vijaykumar Holla; John Mendelsohn; Kenna Mills Shaw; Elmer V Bernstam; Gordon B Mills; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Rozemarijn Snoek; Tri Q Nguyen; Bert van der Zwaag; Arjan D van Zuilen; Hannah M E Kruis; Liesbeth A van Gils-Verrij; Roel Goldschmeding; Nine V A M Knoers; Maarten B Rookmaaker; Albertien M van Eerde Journal: Nephron Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 2.847