I Borget1,2,3, J Bonastre1,2, Arnaud Bayle4,5,6, N Droin1,7, B Besse1, Z Zou1,2, Y Boursin8, S Rissel1, E Solary1,3, L Lacroix1,7,3, E Rouleau1. 1. Biostatistics and Epidemiology Unit, Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805, Villejuif Cedex, France. 2. Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, INSERM U1018, Villejuif, France. 3. Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France. 4. Biostatistics and Epidemiology Unit, Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805, Villejuif Cedex, France. arnaud.bayle@gustaveroussy.fr. 5. Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, INSERM U1018, Villejuif, France. arnaud.bayle@gustaveroussy.fr. 6. Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France. arnaud.bayle@gustaveroussy.fr. 7. UMS CNRS 3655 and INSERM US23, AMMICa, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. 8. Digital Transformation and IT System Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre, 94805, Villejuif, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although high-throughput sequencing is revolutionising medicine, data on the actual cost of whole exome sequencing (WES) applications are needed. We aimed at assessing the cost of WES at a French cancer institute in 2015 and 2018. METHODS: Actual costs of WES application in oncology research were determined using both micro-costing and gross-costing for the years 2015 and 2018, before and after the acquisition of a new sequencer. The entire workflow process of a WES test was tracked, and the number and unit price of each resource were identified at the most detailed level, from library preparation to bioinformatics analyses. In addition, we conducted an ad hoc analysis of the bioinformatics storage costs of data issued from WES analyses. RESULTS: The cost of WES has decreased substantially, from €1921 per sample (i.e. cost of €3842 per patient) in 2015 to €804 per sample (i.e. cost of €1,608 per patient) in 2018, representing a decrease of 58%. In the meantime, the cost of bioinformatics storage has increased from €19,836 to €200,711. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that WES cost has decreased significantly in recent years. WES has become affordable, even though clinical utility and efficiency still need to be confirmed.
OBJECTIVES: Although high-throughput sequencing is revolutionising medicine, data on the actual cost of whole exome sequencing (WES) applications are needed. We aimed at assessing the cost of WES at a French cancer institute in 2015 and 2018. METHODS: Actual costs of WES application in oncology research were determined using both micro-costing and gross-costing for the years 2015 and 2018, before and after the acquisition of a new sequencer. The entire workflow process of a WES test was tracked, and the number and unit price of each resource were identified at the most detailed level, from library preparation to bioinformatics analyses. In addition, we conducted an ad hoc analysis of the bioinformatics storage costs of data issued from WES analyses. RESULTS: The cost of WES has decreased substantially, from €1921 per sample (i.e. cost of €3842 per patient) in 2015 to €804 per sample (i.e. cost of €1,608 per patient) in 2018, representing a decrease of 58%. In the meantime, the cost of bioinformatics storage has increased from €19,836 to €200,711. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that WES cost has decreased significantly in recent years. WES has become affordable, even though clinical utility and efficiency still need to be confirmed.
Authors: Kornelia Neveling; Ilse Feenstra; Christian Gilissen; Lies H Hoefsloot; Erik-Jan Kamsteeg; Arjen R Mensenkamp; Richard J T Rodenburg; Helger G Yntema; Liesbeth Spruijt; Sascha Vermeer; Tuula Rinne; Koen L van Gassen; Danielle Bodmer; Dorien Lugtenberg; Rick de Reuver; Wendy Buijsman; Ronny C Derks; Nienke Wieskamp; Bert van den Heuvel; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Hannie Kremer; David A Koolen; Bart P C van de Warrenburg; Frans P M Cremers; Carlo L M Marcelis; Jan A M Smeitink; Saskia B Wortmann; Wendy A G van Zelst-Stams; Joris A Veltman; Han G Brunner; Hans Scheffer; Marcel R Nelen Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Christophe Massard; Stefan Michiels; Charles Ferté; Marie-Cécile Le Deley; Ludovic Lacroix; Antoine Hollebecque; Loic Verlingue; Ecaterina Ileana; Silvia Rosellini; Samy Ammari; Maud Ngo-Camus; Rastislav Bahleda; Anas Gazzah; Andrea Varga; Sophie Postel-Vinay; Yohann Loriot; Caroline Even; Ingrid Breuskin; Nathalie Auger; Bastien Job; Thierry De Baere; Frederic Deschamps; Philippe Vielh; Jean-Yves Scoazec; Vladimir Lazar; Catherine Richon; Vincent Ribrag; Eric Deutsch; Eric Angevin; Gilles Vassal; Alexander Eggermont; Fabrice André; Jean-Charles Soria Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Sabine Mueller; Payal Jain; Winnie S Liang; Lindsay Kilburn; Cassie Kline; Nalin Gupta; Eshini Panditharatna; Suresh N Magge; Bo Zhang; Yuankun Zhu; John R Crawford; Anu Banerjee; Kellie Nazemi; Roger J Packer; Claudia K Petritsch; Nathalene Truffaux; Alison Roos; Sara Nasser; Joanna J Phillips; David Solomon; Annette Molinaro; Angela J Waanders; Sara A Byron; Michael E Berens; John Kuhn; Javad Nazarian; Michael Prados; Adam C Resnick Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Joseph D Buxbaum; Mark J Daly; Bernie Devlin; Thomas Lehner; Kathryn Roeder; Matthew W State Journal: Neuron Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Jay J H Park; Ellie Siden; Michael J Zoratti; Louis Dron; Ofir Harari; Joel Singer; Richard T Lester; Kristian Thorlund; Edward J Mills Journal: Trials Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 2.279