ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2016
Assessing cost-utility of predictive biomarkers in oncology: a streamlined approach.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying the Impact of Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations: An Application in Precision Medicine.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Article
- A State-of-the-Art Roadmap for Biomarker-Driven Drug Development in the Era of Personalized Therapies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Clinical and economic impact of 'ROS1-testing' strategy compared to a 'no-ROS1-testing' strategy in advanced NSCLC in Spain.BMC cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Evaluation of cost-utility is critical in assessing the medical utility of predictive or prognostic biomarkers. Current methods involve complex state-transition models, requiring comprehensive data inputs. We propose a simplified decision-analytic tool to explore the relative effect of factors contributing to the cost-utility of a biomarker. We derived a cost-utility metric, the "test incremental cost-effectiveness ratio" (TICER) for biomarker-guided treatment compared to no biomarker use. This method uses data inputs readily accessible through clinical literature. We compared our results with traditional cost-effectiveness analysis of predictive biomarkers for established (HER2-guided trastuzumab, ALK-guided crizotinib, OncotypeDX-guided adjuvant chemotherapy) and emerging (ROS1-guided crizotinib) targeted treatments. We conducted sensitivity analysis to determine which factors had the greatest impact on TICER estimates. Base case TICER for HER2 was $149,600/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), for ALK was $22,200/QALY, and for OncotypeDX was $11,600/QALY, consistent with literature-reported estimates ($180,000/QALY, $202,800/QALY, $8900/QALY, respectively). Base case TICER for ROS1-guided crizotinib was $205,900/QALY. Generally, when treatment cost is considerably greater than biomarker testing costs, TICER is driven by clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life, while biomarker prevalence and treatment cost have a lesser effect. Our simplified decision-analytic approach produces values consistent with existing cost-effectiveness analyses. Our results suggest that biomarker value is mostly driven by the clinical efficacy of the targeted agent. A user-friendly web tool for complete TICER analysis has been made available for open use at http://medicine.yale.edu/lab/pusztai/ticer/ .
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.