S Costa1, D A Regier2, B Meissner3, I Cromwell1, S Ben-Neriah3, E Chavez3, S Hung3, C Steidl4, D W Scott5, M A Marra6, S J Peacock7, J M Connors5. 1. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Vancouver, BC; Department of Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC. 2. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Vancouver, BC; Department of Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 3. Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, BC Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 4. Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, BC Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 5. Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, BC Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 6. Canada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, BC Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 7. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Vancouver, BC; Department of Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genomic technologies are increasingly used to guide clinical decision-making in cancer control. Economic evidence about the cost-effectiveness of genomic technologies is limited, in part because of a lack of published comprehensive cost estimates. In the present micro-costing study, we used a time-and-motion approach to derive cost estimates for 3 genomic assays and processes-digital gene expression profiling (gep), fluorescence in situ hybridization (fish), and targeted capture sequencing, including bioinformatics analysis-in the context of lymphoma patient management. METHODS: The setting for the study was the Department of Lymphoid Cancer Research laboratory at the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver, British Columbia. Mean per-case hands-on time and resource measurements were determined from a series of direct observations of each assay. Per-case cost estimates were calculated using a bottom-up costing approach, with labour, capital and equipment, supplies and reagents, and overhead costs included. RESULTS: The most labour-intensive assay was found to be fish at 258.2 minutes per case, followed by targeted capture sequencing (124.1 minutes per case) and digital gep (14.9 minutes per case). Based on a historical case throughput of 180 cases annually, the mean per-case cost (2014 Canadian dollars) was estimated to be $1,029.16 for targeted capture sequencing and bioinformatics analysis, $596.60 for fish, and $898.35 for digital gep with an 807-gene code set. CONCLUSIONS: With the growing emphasis on personalized approaches to cancer management, the need for economic evaluations of high-throughput genomic assays is increasing. Through economic modelling and budget-impact analyses, the cost estimates presented here can be used to inform priority-setting decisions about the implementation of such assays in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Genomic technologies are increasingly used to guide clinical decision-making in cancer control. Economic evidence about the cost-effectiveness of genomic technologies is limited, in part because of a lack of published comprehensive cost estimates. In the present micro-costing study, we used a time-and-motion approach to derive cost estimates for 3 genomic assays and processes-digital gene expression profiling (gep), fluorescence in situ hybridization (fish), and targeted capture sequencing, including bioinformatics analysis-in the context of lymphomapatient management. METHODS: The setting for the study was the Department of Lymphoid Cancer Research laboratory at the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver, British Columbia. Mean per-case hands-on time and resource measurements were determined from a series of direct observations of each assay. Per-case cost estimates were calculated using a bottom-up costing approach, with labour, capital and equipment, supplies and reagents, and overhead costs included. RESULTS: The most labour-intensive assay was found to be fish at 258.2 minutes per case, followed by targeted capture sequencing (124.1 minutes per case) and digital gep (14.9 minutes per case). Based on a historical case throughput of 180 cases annually, the mean per-case cost (2014 Canadian dollars) was estimated to be $1,029.16 for targeted capture sequencing and bioinformatics analysis, $596.60 for fish, and $898.35 for digital gep with an 807-gene code set. CONCLUSIONS: With the growing emphasis on personalized approaches to cancer management, the need for economic evaluations of high-throughput genomic assays is increasing. Through economic modelling and budget-impact analyses, the cost estimates presented here can be used to inform priority-setting decisions about the implementation of such assays in clinical practice.
Authors: David W Scott; George W Wright; P Mickey Williams; Chih-Jian Lih; William Walsh; Elaine S Jaffe; Andreas Rosenwald; Elias Campo; Wing C Chan; Joseph M Connors; Erlend B Smeland; Anja Mottok; Rita M Braziel; German Ott; Jan Delabie; Raymond R Tubbs; James R Cook; Dennis D Weisenburger; Timothy C Greiner; Betty J Glinsmann-Gibson; Kai Fu; Louis M Staudt; Randy D Gascoyne; Lisa M Rimsza Journal: Blood Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Michael K Chapko; Chuan-Fen Liu; Mark Perkins; Yu-Fang Li; John C Fortney; Matthew L Maciejewski Journal: Health Econ Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Julia R Trosman; Robin K Kelley; Mark J Pletcher; Michael P Douglas; Christine B Weldon Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Yonghong Li; Lance A Bare; Richard A Bender; John J Sninsky; Leslie S Wilson; James J Devlin; Frederic M Waldman Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Deirdre Weymann; Janessa Laskin; Robyn Roscoe; Kasmintan A Schrader; Stephen Chia; Stephen Yip; Winson Y Cheung; Karen A Gelmon; Aly Karsan; Daniel J Renouf; Marco Marra; Dean A Regier Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2017-03-12 Impact factor: 2.183
Authors: Neil A J Ryan; Niall J Davison; Katherine Payne; Anne Cole; D Gareth Evans; Emma J Crosbie Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Louisa G Gordon; Nicole M White; Thomas M Elliott; Katia Nones; Anthony G Beckhouse; Astrid J Rodriguez-Acevedo; Penelope M Webb; Xing J Lee; Nicholas Graves; Deborah J Schofield Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Dean A Regier; Brandon Chan; Sarah Costa; David W Scott; Christian Steidl; Joseph M Connors; Aly Karsan; Marco A Marra; Robert Kridel; Ian Cromwell; Samantha Pollard Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 6.639