ArticleThe oncologist2023
Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator.
Article in The oncologist, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial Proteomics as a Potential Decision-Support Layer for Early Melanoma: A Narrative Review.International journal of dermatology · 2026Review
- Clinical harm from failure to deploy personalized medicine for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Cost of Genomic Testing for Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- State-level opportunities to advance biomarker testing in patients with advanced cancers and state-regulated plans.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- 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
- Molecular predictive biomarker testing in advanced thyroid cancer - a European consensus.European thyroid journal · 2025Review
- Clinical applications of next-generation sequencing-based ctDNA analyses in breast cancer: defining treatment targets and dynamic changes during disease progression.Molecular oncology · 2025Review
- Costs and Benefits of Whole-Exome, Whole-Transcriptome Sequencing in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Overcoming barriers to advanced biomolecular technologies that inform treatment of solid tumors: a roadmap to access.Future oncology (London, England) · 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
- Cost-effectiveness of companion BRCA testing and adjuvant olaparib treatment in patients with BRCA-mutated high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Next step of molecular pathology: next-generation sequencing in cytology.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2024Review
- The Impact of Prior Single-Gene Testing on Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Results for Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Oncology and therapy · 2024Article
- Article
- Future perspective for the application of predictive biomarker testing in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Review
- Actionable mutational profiling in solid tumors using hybrid-capture-based next-generation sequencing in a real-world setting in Spain.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdoption of high-throughput, gene panel-based, next-generation sequencing (NGS) into routine cancer care is widely supported, but hampered by concerns about cost. To inform policies regarding genomic testing strategies, we propose a simple metric, cost per correctly identified patient (CCIP), that compares sequential single-gene testing (SGT) vs. multiplex NGS in different tumor types. MATERIALS AND
methodsA genomic testing cost calculator was developed based on clinically actionable genomic alterations identified in the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets. Using sensitivity/specificity data for SGTs (immunohistochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, and fluorescence in situ hybridization) and NGS and marker prevalence, the number needed to predict metric was monetarized to estimate CCIP.
resultsAt base case, CCIP was lower with NGS than sequential SGT for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, colorectal, gastric cancers, and cholangiocarcinoma. CCIP with NGS was also favorable for squamous NSCLC, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers, but with overlapping confidence intervals. CCIP favored SGT for prostate cancer. Alternate scenarios using different price estimates for each test showed similar trends, but with incremental changes in the magnitude of difference between NGS and SGT, depending on price estimates for each test.
conclusionsThe cost to correctly identify clinically actionable genomic alterations was lower for NGS than sequential SGT in most cancer types evaluated. Decreasing price estimates for NGS and the rapid expansion of targeted therapies and accompanying biomarkers are anticipated to further support NGS as a preferred diagnostic standard for precision oncology.
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.