ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Cost-effectiveness of precision molecular diagnostic tests for stage II colorectal cancer.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Towards a Multi-sectoral Approach to Population Health: A Scoping Review of Cross-sectoral Evaluations of Health Interventions.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Review
- Immunoscore: redefining the landscape of colorectal cancer control and care.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Towards Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Predictive, Prognostic, and Serial Biomarker Tests in Oncology.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In colorectal cancer, inappropriate use of adjuvant chemotherapies may lead to significant increases in healthcare costs and harms to patients. Genome-based interventions are being increasingly used in the stratification of patients according to their risk profiles. However, earlier cost-effectiveness analyses of precision molecular diagnostics have indicated a paucity of data on comparative health economic outcomes. Our aim was to compare the cost-effectiveness of marketed genomic tests used in the prognosis of stage II colorectal cancer patients. Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment guided by any one of the following genomic tests: 12-gene assay or the 18-gene expression assay or the 482-gene signature or the Immunoscore assay in a hypothetical cohort of patients (n=1,000) with stage II colorectal cancer. Our study investigated outcomes in three health states: no recurrence, recurrence and death. This study was conducted from a societal perspective, and a 3% discount was applied to the costs and health outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of model parameters on the results. Results: The cost of the Immunoscore assay strategy in stage II colorectal cancer patients was estimated to be US $23,564 with a gain of 3.903 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as compared with the 12-gene assay strategy at US $24,545 and 3.903 QALYs; the 18-gene assay strategy at US $28,374 and 3.623 QALYs; and the 482-gene signature treatment strategy at US $33,315 with 3.704 QALYs. Sensitivity analyses indicated that incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values were sensitive to costs of genomic tests and adjuvant chemotherapies; and utilities related to patients in the no-recurrence health state. Conclusions: Overall, the Immunoscore assay seems to be a dominant strategy at a threshold willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY, but in the US other tests have been used for longer. Thus, the 12-gene assay may generate cost savings compared to the 18-gene expression assay. The findings of our study may provide useful information to policymakers regarding selection of the most appropriate genomic test, and resource allocation decisions.
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.