Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29367707›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018

Cost of cancer diagnosis using next-generation sequencing targeted gene panels in routine practice: a nationwide French study.

Patricia Marino, Rajae Touzani, Lionel Perrier, Etienne Rouleau, Dede Sika Kossi, Zou Zhaomin, Nathanaël Charrier, Nicolas Goardon, Claude Preudhomme, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Patricia MarinoInstitut Paoli Calmettes, SESSTIM, Marseille, France. patricia.marino@inserm.fr.
Rajae TouzaniInstitut Paoli Calmettes, SESSTIM, Marseille, France.
Lionel PerrierLéon Berard Cancer Centre, GATE L-SE, UMR-CNRS 5824, Lyon, France.
Etienne RouleauDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Dede Sika KossiRothschild Fundation, Health Economy, Paris, France.
Zou ZhaominGustave Roussy, Etudes et Recherche en économie de la santé, Villejuif, France.
Nathanaël CharrierHôpital Hôtel Dieu, URC Eco Ile de France, Paris, France.
Nicolas GoardonCancer Comprehensive Center François Baclesse, Cancer Biology and Genetics Laboratory, Caen, France.
Claude PreudhommeCHRU of Lille, Biology & Pathology Center, Laboratory of Hematology, Lille, France.
Isabelle Durand-ZaleskiHôpital Hôtel Dieu, URC Eco Ile de France, Paris, France.
Isabelle BorgetGustave Roussy, Etudes et Recherche en économie de la santé, Villejuif, France.
Sandrine BaffertRothschild Fundation, Health Economy, Paris, France.
NGSEco Group:

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is currently unclear if next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies can be implemented in the diagnosis setting at an affordable cost. The aim of this study was to measure the total cost of performing NGS in clinical practice in France, in both germline and somatic cancer genetics.The study was performed on 15 French representative cancer molecular genetics laboratories performing NGS panels' tests. The production cost was estimated using a micro-costing method with resources consumed collected in situ in each laboratory from a healthcare provider perspective. In addition, we used a top-down methodology for specific post-sequencing steps including bioinformatics, technical validation, and biological validation. Additional non-specific costs were also included. Costs were detailed per step of the process (from the pre-analytical phase to delivery of results), and per cost driver (consumables, staff, equipment, maintenance, overheads). Sensitivity analyses were performed.The mean total cost of NGS for targeted gene panels was estimated to 607€ (±207) in somatic genetics and 550€ (±140) in germline oncogenetic analysis. Consumables were the highest cost driver of the sequencing process. The sensitivity analysis showed that a 25% reduction of consumables resulted in a 15% decrease in total NGS cost in somatic genetics, and 13% in germline analysis. Additional costs accounted for 30-32% of the total NGS costs.Beyond cost assessment considerations, the diffusion of NGS technologies will raise questions about their efficiency when compared to more targeted approaches, and their added value in a context of routine diagnosis.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerFranceGenetic TestingHumansSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID29367707
PMCPMC5838982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.