ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2024
Real-world cost-effectiveness of multi-gene panel sequencing to inform therapeutic decisions for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based study.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of clinical-radiological prediction models to prioritizeJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- A predictive model for fusion gene positivity in treatment-naive advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Determining the Survival Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Multi-Gene Panel Sequencing in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With Super Learning Approaches.Health services research · 2026Article
- Determining the value of genomics in healthcare.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- The role of neoantigens and tumor mutational burden in cancer immunotherapy: advances, mechanisms, and perspectives.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2025Review
- Opportunities and Challenges of Population Pharmacogenomics.Annals of human genetics · 2025Review
- Advances in personalized medicine: translating genomic insights into targeted therapies for cancer treatment.Annals of translational medicine · 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multi-gene panel sequencing streamlines treatment selection for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Implementation continues to be uneven across jurisdictions, partly due to uncertain clinical and economic impacts. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, the public healthcare system reimbursed a multi-gene panel in September 2016. This study determined the population-level cost-effectiveness of publicly reimbursed multi-gene panel sequencing compared to single-gene testing for advanced NSCLC. Methods: Our population-based retrospective study design used patient-level linked administrative health databases. We considered adult BC residents with a panel-eligible lung cancer diagnosis between September 2016 and December 2018. Using a machine learning approach, we conducted 1:1 genetic algorithm matching of recipients receiving multi-gene panel sequencing to controls receiving single-gene testing, maximising balance on observed demographic and clinical characteristics. Following matching, we estimated mean three-year survival time and costs (public healthcare payer perspective; 2021 CAD) and calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for life-years gained (LYG) at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds using inverse probability of censoring weighted linear regression and nonparametric bootstrapping. Findings: We matched 858 panel-eligible advanced NSCLC patients to controls, achieving balance for the 16 included covariates. Average test turnaround times were 18.6 days for multi-gene panel sequencing and 7.0 days for single-gene testing. After matching, mean incremental costs were $3529 (95% CI: -$4268, $10,942) and mean incremental LYG were 0.08 (95% CI: -0.04, 0.18). Among the 1000 bootstrap samples, 14.5% had lower costs and increased survival and 78.6% had higher costs and increased survival. The INMB was $523 (95% CI: -$6256, $7023) at $50,000/LYG, with a 57.5% probability of being cost-effective, and $4575 (95% CI: -$5468, $14,064) at $100,000/LYG, with an 84.0% probability of being cost-effective. Interpretation: Using population-based real-world data, we found a moderate to high probability that panel-based testing to inform targeted treatment for NSCLC would be cost-effective at higher thresholds. Funding: This research was supported by Genome British Columbia/Genome Canada (G05CHS) and the Terry Fox Research Institute.
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.