ArticleHemaSphere2023
Targeted High-throughput Sequencing for Hematological Malignancies: A GBMHM Survey of Practice and Cost Evaluation in France.
Article in HemaSphere, 2023. 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.
- Micro-costing of genetic and genomic testing in oncology: a systematic review of laboratory resources and costs.Health economics review · 2026Review
- How to Read a Next-Generation Sequencing Report for AML and MDS? What Hematologists Need to Know.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Microcosting Study of Genomic Profiling for Precision Cancer Medicine: Application from the National Infrastructure for Precision Diagnostics in Norway.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2025Article
- Implementation science in hemato-oncology molecular diagnostics in France via the Groupe des Biologistes Moléculaire des Hémopathies Malignes (GBMHM).HemaSphere · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the clinical impact and financial costs of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in 5 categories of pediatric and adult hematological cancers. NGS prescriptions were prospectively collected from 26 laboratories, with varied technical and reporting practice (all or only significant targets). Impact was defined by the identification of (1) an actionable mutation, (2) a mutation with prognostic and/or theranostic value, and/or (3) a mutation allowing nosological refinement, reported by local investigators. A microcosting study was undertaken in 4 laboratories, identifying the types and volumes of resources required for each procedural step. Individual index prescriptions for 3961 patients were available for impact analysis on the management of myeloid disorders (two thirds) and, mainly mature B, lymphoid disorders (one third). NGS results were considered to impact the management for 73.4% of prescriptions: useful for evaluation of prognostic risk in 34.9% and necessary for treatment adaptation (actionable) in 19.6%, but having no immediate individual therapeutic impact in 18.9%. The average overall cost per sample was 191 € for the restricted mature lymphoid amplicon panel. Capture panel costs varied from 369 € to 513 €. Unit costs varied from 0.5 € to 5.7 € per kb sequenced, from 3.6 € to 11.3 € per target gene/hot-spot sequenced and from 4.3 € to 73.8 € per target gene/hot-spot reported. Comparable costs for the Amplicon panels were 5-8 € per kb and 10.5-14.7 € per target gene/hot-spot sequenced and reported, demonstrating comparable costs with greater informativity/flexibility for capture strategies. Sustainable funding of precision medicine requires a transparent discussion of its impact on care pathways and its financial aspects.
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.