Deirdre Weymann1, Reka Pataky1, Dean A Regier1. 1. All authors, Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, BC Cancer; and Dean A. Regier, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Precision oncology has the potential to improve patient health and reduce treatment costs. Yet the up-front cost of genomic testing with next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies can be prohibitive. Our study is a structured review of economic evaluations of precision oncology informed by NGS. The aim is to characterize the availability and scope of economic evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for English-language full-text peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2016. We focused our search on articles that estimated the benefit of precision oncology in relation to its costs. We excluded studies that did not undertake full economic evaluations or did not focus on NGS technologies. We reviewed all included studies and summarized key methodological and empirical study characteristics. RESULTS: Fifty-five economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. The number of published studies increased steadily, from three studies between 2005 and 2007 to 26 between 2014 and 2016. Most studies evaluated multiplex panels (86%). We found testing was frequently used to predict prognosis (67%), to diagnose patients (24%), or to identify targeted therapeutic options (7%). Methods and cost effectiveness differed according to NGS technology, test strategy, and cancer type. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were typically used to characterize parameter and decision uncertainty (91% and 75%). CONCLUSION: Although the availability of economic evidence examining precision oncology increased over time, methods used often did not align with current guidelines. Future evaluations should undertake extensive sensitivity analysis to address all sources of uncertainty associated with rapidly changing NGS technologies. Furthermore, additional research is needed evaluating the cost effectiveness of more comprehensive next-generation technologies before implementing these on a wider scale.
PURPOSE: Precision oncology has the potential to improve patient health and reduce treatment costs. Yet the up-front cost of genomic testing with next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies can be prohibitive. Our study is a structured review of economic evaluations of precision oncology informed by NGS. The aim is to characterize the availability and scope of economic evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for English-language full-text peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2016. We focused our search on articles that estimated the benefit of precision oncology in relation to its costs. We excluded studies that did not undertake full economic evaluations or did not focus on NGS technologies. We reviewed all included studies and summarized key methodological and empirical study characteristics. RESULTS: Fifty-five economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. The number of published studies increased steadily, from three studies between 2005 and 2007 to 26 between 2014 and 2016. Most studies evaluated multiplex panels (86%). We found testing was frequently used to predict prognosis (67%), to diagnose patients (24%), or to identify targeted therapeutic options (7%). Methods and cost effectiveness differed according to NGS technology, test strategy, and cancer type. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were typically used to characterize parameter and decision uncertainty (91% and 75%). CONCLUSION: Although the availability of economic evidence examining precision oncology increased over time, methods used often did not align with current guidelines. Future evaluations should undertake extensive sensitivity analysis to address all sources of uncertainty associated with rapidly changing NGS technologies. Furthermore, additional research is needed evaluating the cost effectiveness of more comprehensive next-generation technologies before implementing these on a wider scale.
Authors: Karl Johnson; Katherine W Saylor; Isabella Guynn; Karen Hicklin; Jonathan S Berg; Kristen Hassmiller Lich Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Reka E Pataky; Stirling Bryan; Mohsen Sadatsafavi; Stuart Peacock; Dean A Regier Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.558
Authors: Joaquin Mateo; Lotte Steuten; Philippe Aftimos; Fabrice André; Mark Davies; Elena Garralda; Jan Geissler; Don Husereau; Iciar Martinez-Lopez; Nicola Normanno; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Stephen Stefani; David M Thomas; C Benedikt Westphalen; Emile Voest Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 87.241
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