ArticleCancers2022
Cell-Free DNA at Diagnosis for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Costs, Time to Diagnosis and Clinical Relevance.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design, Development, and Clinical Validation of a Novel Kit for Cell-Free DNA Extraction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Investigation into Cell-Free DNA in Different Common Cancers.Molecular biotechnology · 2024Review
- Unraveling the Potential of ALK-Targeted Therapies in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Comprehensive Insights and Future Directions.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Current and Future Perspectives of Cell-Free DNA in Liquid Biopsy.Current issues in molecular biology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tissue biopsies can be burdensome and are only effective in 10-30% of patients with metastasized non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) might be an attractive alternative. We evaluated the costs, throughput time, and diagnostic yield of two diagnostic scenarios with tissue and cfDNA for mNSCLC patients, compared to diagnostics based on tissue biopsy alone. Data were retrieved from 209 stage IV NSCLC patients included in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands in the observational Lung cancer Early Molecular Assessment (LEMA) trial. Discrete event simulation was developed to compare three scenarios, using LEMA data as input where possible: (1) diagnostics with "tissue only"; (2) diagnostics with "cfDNA first", and subsequent tissue biopsy if required (negative for EGFR, BRAF ALK, ROS1); (3) cfDNA if tissue biopsy failed ("tissue first"). Scenario- and probabilistic analyses were performed to quantify uncertainty. In scenario 1, 84% (Credibility Interval [CrI] 70-94%) of the cases had a clinically relevant test result, compared to 93% (CrI 86-98%) in scenario 2, and 93% (CrI 86-99%) in scenario 3. The mean throughput time was 20 days (CrI 17-23) pp in scenario 1, 9 days (CrI 7-11) in scenario 2, and 19 days (CrI 16-22) in scenario 3. Mean costs were €2304 pp (CrI €2067-2507) in scenario 1, compared to €3218 (CrI €3071-3396) for scenario 2, and €2448 (CrI €2382-2506) for scenario 3. Scenarios 2 and 3 led to a reduction in tissue biopsies of 16% and 9%, respectively. In this process-based simulation analysis, the implementation of cfDNA for patients with mNSCLC resulted in faster completion of molecular profiling with more identified targets, with marginal extra costs in scenario 3.
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.