ArticleBMC cancer2020
Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients.
Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Patient-level simulation models in cancer care: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Application of the conventional and novel methods in testing EGFR variants for NSCLC patients in the last 10 years through different regions: a systematic review.Molecular biology reports · 2021Pooled it
- Lung Cancer in Never Smokers-An Underappreciated Public Health Burden.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Companion Diagnostics in Clinical Therapy: Current Applications and Future Directions.MedComm · 2026Review
- Towards Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Predictive, Prognostic, and Serial Biomarker Tests in Oncology.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Cost-Utility Analysis of Genomic Profiling in Directing Targeted Therapy in Advanced NSCLC in Thailand.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology-A Guiding Compass for Targeted Therapy and Emerging Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Cholangiocarcinoma: The era of liquid biopsy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Costs of biomarker testing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a global study comparing next-generation sequencing and single-gene testing.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2025Observational
- Metagenomics: a new frontier for routine pathology testing of gastrointestinal pathogens.Gut pathogens · 2025Article
- [Chinese Expert Consensus on the Standardized Diagnosis and Treatment of Non‑small Cell Lung Cancer with EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations (2024 Edition)].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Next-generation sequencing impact on cancer care: applications, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Review
- Development of a Detection System forDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator.The oncologist · 2023Article
- Challenges Related to the Use of Next-Generation Sequencing for the Optimization of Drug Therapy.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2023Article
- Molecular Profiling in Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: Towards a Switch to Next-Generation Sequencing Reflex Testing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of choice for advanced non-small cell lung cancer is selected according to the presence of specific alterations. Patients should undergo molecular testing for relevant modifications and the mutational status of EGFR and translocation of ALK and ROS1 are commonly tested to offer the best intervention. In addition, the tests costs should also be taken in consideration. Therefore, this work was performed in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a unique exam using NGS (next generation sequencing) versus other routinely used tests which involve RT-PCR and FISH.
methodsThe target population was NSCLC, adenocarcinoma, and candidates to first-line therapy. Two strategies were undertaken, strategy 1 corresponded to sequential tests with EGFR RT-PCR, then FISH for ALK and ROS1. Strategy 2 differed from 1 in that ALK and ROS1 translocation testing were performed simultaneously by FISH. Strategy 3 considered single test next-generation sequencing, a platform that includes EGFR, ALK and ROS1 genes. A decision tree analysis was used to model genetic testing options. From the test results, a microsimulation model was nested to estimate survival outcomes and costs of therapeutic options.
resultsThe use of NGS added 24% extra true cases as well as extra costs attributed to the molecular testing. The ICER comparing NGS with sequential tests was US$ 3479.11/correct case detected. The NGS improved a slight gain in life years and QALYs.
conclusionOur results indicated that, although precise, the molecular diagnosis by NGS of patients with advanced stage NSCLC adenocarcinoma histology was not cost-effective in terms of quality-adjusted life years from the perspective of the Brazilian supplementary health system.
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.