ArticleJCO precision oncology2022
Cost-Effectiveness of Parallel Versus Sequential Testing of Genetic Aberrations for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Netherlands.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluations of next-generation sequencing for targeted therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness models of non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical harm from failure to deploy personalized medicine for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Real-world evidence of RET fusion prevalence and testing in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Translational oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-based classification of Spitz tumors.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Real-world clinical utility of tumor whole-genome sequencing in solid cancers.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Utilization of a Multi-modal Comprehensive Genomic and Immune Profiling Testing Strategy Results in a High Rate of Test Success and Detection of Clinically Relevant Biomarkers While Optimizing Tissue Usage.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Article
- Towards Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Predictive, Prognostic, and Serial Biomarker Tests in Oncology.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Oncogenic gene fusions in cancer: from biology to therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
- Cost Effectiveness of Exclusionary EGFR Testing for Taiwanese Patients Newly Diagnosed with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- 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
- Real-world cost-effectiveness of multi-gene panel sequencing to inform therapeutic decisions for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2024Article
- Next step of molecular pathology: next-generation sequencing in cytology.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of a Whole-Genome Sequencing-Based Biomarker for Treatment Selection in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Ineligible for Targeted Therapy.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Future perspective for the application of predictive biomarker testing in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Review
- Article
- A rapid, multiplex digital PCR assay to detect gene variants and fusions in non-small cell lung cancer.Molecular oncology · 2023Article
- Usefulness and real-world outcomes of next generation sequencing testing in patients with cancer: an observational study on the impact of selection based on clinical judgement.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA large number of targeted treatment options for stage IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer with specific genetic aberrations in tumor DNA is available. It is therefore important to optimize diagnostic testing strategies, such that patients receive adequate personalized treatment that improves survival and quality of life. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy (including diagnostic costs, turnaround time (TAT), unsuccessful tests, percentages of correct findings, therapeutic costs, and therapeutic effectiveness) of parallel next generation sequencing (NGS)-based versus sequential single-gene-based testing strategies routinely used in patients with metastasized non-small-cell lung cancer in the Netherlands.
methodsA diagnostic microsimulation model was developed to simulate 100,000 patients with prevalence of genetic aberrations, extracted from real-world data from the Dutch Pathology Registry. These simulated patients were modeled to undergo different testing strategies composed of multiple tests with different test characteristics including single-gene and panel tests, test accuracy, the probability of an unsuccessful test, and TAT. Diagnostic outcomes were linked to a previously developed treatment model, to predict average long-term survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of parallel versus sequential testing.
resultsNGS-based parallel testing for all actionable genetic aberrations is on average €266 cheaper than single-gene-based sequential testing, and detects additional relevant targetable genetic aberrations in 20.5% of the cases, given a TAT of maximally 2 weeks. Therapeutic costs increased by €8,358, and 0.12 QALYs were gained, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €69,614/QALY for parallel versus sequential testing.
conclusionNGS-based parallel testing is diagnostically superior over single-gene-based sequential testing, as it is cheaper and more effective than sequential testing. Parallel testing remains cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 69,614 €/QALY upon inclusion of therapeutic costs and long-term outcomes.
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.