ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2014
Micro-cost Analysis of ALK Rearrangement Testing by FISH to Determine Eligibility for Crizotinib Therapy in NSCLC: Implications for Cost Effectiveness of Testing and Treatment.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A microcosting study of immunogenicity and tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor drug level tests for therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- Economic Analysis of Alternative Strategies for Detection of ALK Rearrangements in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is the gold standard test for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangement. However, this methodology often is assumed to be expensive and potentially cost-prohibitive given the low prevalence of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. To more accurately estimate the cost of ALK testing by FISH, we developed a micro-cost model that accounts for all cost elements of the assay, including laboratory reagents, supplies, capital equipment, technical and pathologist labor, and the acquisition cost of the commercial test and associated reagent kits and controls. By applying a set of real-world base-case parameter values, we determined that the cost of a single ALK break-apart FISH test result is $278.01. Sensitivity analysis on the parameters of batch size, testing efficiency, and the cost of the commercial diagnostic testing products revealed that the cost per result is highly sensitive to batch size, but much less so to efficiency or product cost. This implies that ALK testing by FISH will be most cost effective when performed in high-volume centers. Our results indicate that testing cost may not be the primary determinant of crizotinib (Xalkori(®)) treatment cost effectiveness, and suggest that testing cost is an insufficient reason to limit the use of FISH testing for ALK rearrangement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.