下一代测序 (NGS) 测试在晚期癌症患者中的价值。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-02 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2024.2329009
Jesse D Ortendahl, Gebra Cuyun Carter, Snehal G Thakkar, Katalin Bognar, David W Hall, Yara Abdou
{"title":"下一代测序 (NGS) 测试在晚期癌症患者中的价值。","authors":"Jesse D Ortendahl, Gebra Cuyun Carter, Snehal G Thakkar, Katalin Bognar, David W Hall, Yara Abdou","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2024.2329009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to evaluate test choice in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Treatment pathways were based on NCCN guidelines and medical expert opinion. Inputs were derived from published literature. Annual economic results and lifetime clinical results with OncoExTra testing were projected per-tested-patient and compared with single gene testing and no testing. Separately, results were estimated for a US health plan without the OncoExTra test and with its use in 5% of patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with no genomic testing, OncoExTra test use increased costs by $4,915 per patient; however, 82%-92% of individuals across tumour types were identified as eligible for targeted therapy or a clinical trial. Compared with single gene testing, OncoExTra test use decreased costs by $9,966 per-patient-tested while increasing use of approved or investigational targeted therapies by 20%. When considering a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 858 patients were eligible for genomic testing. Using the OncoExTra test in 5% of those eligible, per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.003, ranging from cost-savings of $0.026 in NSCLC patients to a $0.009 increase in prostate cancer patients. Cost-savings were driven by reduced treatment costs with increased clinical trial enrolment and reduced direct and indirect medical costs associated with targeted treatments.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Limitations include the required simplifications in modelling complex conditions that may not fully reflect evolving real-world testing and treatment patterns.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to single-gene testing, results indicate that using next generation sequencing test such as OncoExTra identified more actionable alterations, leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value of next generation sequencing (NGS) testing in advanced cancer patients.\",\"authors\":\"Jesse D Ortendahl, Gebra Cuyun Carter, Snehal G Thakkar, Katalin Bognar, David W Hall, Yara Abdou\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13696998.2024.2329009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to evaluate test choice in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Treatment pathways were based on NCCN guidelines and medical expert opinion. Inputs were derived from published literature. Annual economic results and lifetime clinical results with OncoExTra testing were projected per-tested-patient and compared with single gene testing and no testing. Separately, results were estimated for a US health plan without the OncoExTra test and with its use in 5% of patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with no genomic testing, OncoExTra test use increased costs by $4,915 per patient; however, 82%-92% of individuals across tumour types were identified as eligible for targeted therapy or a clinical trial. Compared with single gene testing, OncoExTra test use decreased costs by $9,966 per-patient-tested while increasing use of approved or investigational targeted therapies by 20%. When considering a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 858 patients were eligible for genomic testing. Using the OncoExTra test in 5% of those eligible, per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.003, ranging from cost-savings of $0.026 in NSCLC patients to a $0.009 increase in prostate cancer patients. Cost-savings were driven by reduced treatment costs with increased clinical trial enrolment and reduced direct and indirect medical costs associated with targeted treatments.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Limitations include the required simplifications in modelling complex conditions that may not fully reflect evolving real-world testing and treatment patterns.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to single-gene testing, results indicate that using next generation sequencing test such as OncoExTra identified more actionable alterations, leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2329009\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2329009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:针对肿瘤患者的靶向疗法越来越多。可用于确定符合治疗条件的患者的基因组检测包括单基因检测和基因组检测,其中包括全外显子组、全转录组 OncoExTraTM 检测。我们对检测选择的成本和临床效益进行了评估。方法:我们开发了一个基于 Microsoft Excel 的模型来评估晚期/转移性非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)、乳腺癌、前列腺癌和结直肠癌患者的检验选择。治疗路径基于 NCCN 指南和医学专家意见。输入数据来自已发表的文献。对每位接受过 OncoExTra 检测的患者的年度经济效益和终生临床效果进行了预测,并与单基因检测和不进行检测进行了比较。另外,还估算了没有进行 OncoExTra 检测的美国医疗计划的结果,以及 5% 的患者使用该检测的结果。结果:与不进行基因组检测相比,使用OncoExTra检测使每位患者的成本增加了4915美元;但是,82%-92%的不同肿瘤类型的患者被确定为符合靶向治疗或临床试验的条件。与单基因检测相比,OncoExTra 检测的使用使每位受检患者的成本降低了 9966 美元,同时使获批或在研靶向疗法的使用率提高了 20%。如果假设医疗计划有 100 万名成员,则有 858 名患者符合基因组检测条件。在5%符合条件的患者中使用OncoExTra检测后,每名成员每月的成本降低了0.003美元,从NSCLC患者节省0.026美元到前列腺癌患者增加0.009美元不等。成本节约的原因是临床试验注册人数的增加降低了治疗成本,以及与靶向治疗相关的直接和间接医疗成本的降低。结论:局限性包括对复杂病症建模所需的简化,可能无法完全反映现实世界中不断变化的检测和治疗模式。结果表明,与单基因检测相比,使用 OncoExTra 等 NGS 检测能发现更多可操作的改变,从而改善治疗效果并降低成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Value of next generation sequencing (NGS) testing in advanced cancer patients.

Objective: The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice.

Methods: A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to evaluate test choice in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Treatment pathways were based on NCCN guidelines and medical expert opinion. Inputs were derived from published literature. Annual economic results and lifetime clinical results with OncoExTra testing were projected per-tested-patient and compared with single gene testing and no testing. Separately, results were estimated for a US health plan without the OncoExTra test and with its use in 5% of patients.

Results: Compared with no genomic testing, OncoExTra test use increased costs by $4,915 per patient; however, 82%-92% of individuals across tumour types were identified as eligible for targeted therapy or a clinical trial. Compared with single gene testing, OncoExTra test use decreased costs by $9,966 per-patient-tested while increasing use of approved or investigational targeted therapies by 20%. When considering a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 858 patients were eligible for genomic testing. Using the OncoExTra test in 5% of those eligible, per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.003, ranging from cost-savings of $0.026 in NSCLC patients to a $0.009 increase in prostate cancer patients. Cost-savings were driven by reduced treatment costs with increased clinical trial enrolment and reduced direct and indirect medical costs associated with targeted treatments.

Limitations: Limitations include the required simplifications in modelling complex conditions that may not fully reflect evolving real-world testing and treatment patterns.

Conclusions: Compared to single-gene testing, results indicate that using next generation sequencing test such as OncoExTra identified more actionable alterations, leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Economics
Journal of Medical Economics HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication. Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience
期刊最新文献
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the value of increasing treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: a plain language summary. Employment status of multiple sclerosis patients in Japan. Relationship between a diagnosis of kidney failure and heart diseases in patients with hyperkalaemia. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of Acalabrutinib versus Ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a lung cancer screening program in the netherlands: a simulation based on NELSON and NLST study outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1