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
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
285-298Références
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