Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: Is It a Cost-Saving Alternative to a Single-Gene Testing Approach?


Journal

PharmacoEconomics - open
ISSN: 2509-4254
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoecon Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101700780

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Historique:
accepted: 12 12 2020
pubmed: 5 3 2021
medline: 5 3 2021
entrez: 4 3 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

This study aimed to compare the costs of a next-generation sequencing-based (NGS-based) panel testing strategy to those of a single-gene testing-based (SGT-based) strategy, considering different scenarios of clinical practice evolution. Three Italian hospitals were analysed, and four different testing pathways (paths 1, 2, 3, and 4) were identified: two for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients and two for unresectable metastatic colon-rectal cancer (mCRC) patients. For each path, we explored four scenarios considering the current clinical practice and its expected evolution. The 16 testing cases (4 scenarios × 4 paths) were then compared in terms of differential costs between the NGS-based and SGT-based approaches considering personnel, consumables, equipment, and overhead costs. Break-even and sensitivity analyses were performed. Data gathering, aimed at identifying the hospital setup, was performed through a semi-structured questionnaire administered to the professionals involved in testing activities. The NGS-based strategy was found to be a cost-saving alternative to the SGT-based strategy in 15 of the 16 testing cases. The break-even threshold, the minimum number of patients required to make the NGS-based approach less costly than the SGT-based approach, varied across the testing cases depending on molecular alterations tested, techniques adopted, and specific costs. The analysis found the NGS-based approach to be less costly than the SGT-based approach in nine of the 16 testing cases at any volume of tests performed; in six cases, the NGS-based approach was found to be less costly above a threshold (and in one case, it was found to be always more expensive). Savings obtained using an NGS-based approach ranged from €30 to €1249 per patient; in the unique testing case where NGS was more costly, the additional cost per patient was €25. An NGS-based approach may be less costly than an SGT-based approach; also, generated savings increase with the number of patients and different molecular alterations tested.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33660227
doi: 10.1007/s41669-020-00249-0
pii: 10.1007/s41669-020-00249-0
pmc: PMC8160052
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

285-298

Références

JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jan;2(1):13-4
pubmed: 26540172
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Feb;38(2):143-158
pubmed: 31741314
Oncologist. 2008;13 Suppl 1:28-36
pubmed: 18263772
Health Syst Transit. 2014;16(4):1-168
pubmed: 25471543
Drug Discov Today. 2018 Oct;23(10):1776-1783
pubmed: 29758342
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 15;10(6):e0129280
pubmed: 26076459
Genet Med. 2020 Jan;22(1):85-94
pubmed: 31358947
Value Health. 2018 Sep;21(9):1033-1042
pubmed: 30224106
Ann Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;30(1):44-56
pubmed: 30395155
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 12;377(15):1409-1412
pubmed: 29020592
Pak J Med Sci. 2018 Mar-Apr;34(2):472-477
pubmed: 29805429
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):1434-1435
pubmed: 30507475
Eur J Hum Genet. 2015 Sep;23(9):1142-50
pubmed: 25626705
J Mol Diagn. 2016 May;18(3):319-328
pubmed: 27080370
Genet Med. 2018 Oct;20(10):1122-1130
pubmed: 29446766
Ecancermedicalscience. 2016 Oct 28;10:684
pubmed: 27899957

Auteurs

Giancarlo Pruneri (G)

Department of the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS-Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
School of Medicine, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Filippo De Braud (F)

Department of Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS-Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
School of Medicine, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Anna Sapino (A)

Pathology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute-FPO-IRCCS-Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Massimo Aglietta (M)

Medical Oncology, Candiolo Cancer Institute-FPO-IRCCS-Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
Department of Oncology, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.

Andrea Vecchione (A)

Pathology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, St. Andrea University Hospital, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.

Raffaele Giusti (R)

Medical Oncology Unit, St. Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.

Caterina Marchiò (C)

Pathology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute-FPO-IRCCS-Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Stefania Scarpino (S)

Pathology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, St. Andrea University Hospital, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.

Anna Baggi (A)

Life Sciences Division, Business Integration Partners, Milan, Italy.

Giuseppe Bonetti (G)

Life Sciences Division, Business Integration Partners, Milan, Italy.

Jean Marie Franzini (JM)

Life Sciences Division, Business Integration Partners, Milan, Italy.

Marco Volpe (M)

Life Sciences Division, Business Integration Partners, Milan, Italy.

Claudio Jommi (C)

Cergas, Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management, SDA Bocconi School of Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy. claudio.jommi@unibocconi.it.

Classifications MeSH