Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40052485›Full record

Observational studyThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2025

Costs of biomarker testing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a global study comparing next-generation sequencing and single-gene testing.

Umberto Malapelle, Chien-Chin Chen, Enrique de Álava, Paul Hofman, Daniel Kazdal, Tae-Jung Kim, Tony Kiat Hon Lim, Aleš Ryška, Angelica A Saetta, Ed Schuuring and 15 more

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Liquid biopsy in solid tumours: expert opinion paper of the European society of pathology.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Liquid Biopsy in Solid Tumours: An Overview.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Umberto MalapelleDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3211-9957
Chien-Chin ChenDepartment of Pathology, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-9599-0884
Enrique de ÁlavaVirgen del Rocio University Hospital, Institute of Biomedicine of Sevilla (IBiS), CSIC, University of Sevilla, CIBERONC, Seville, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8400-046X
Paul HofmanLaboratory of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, IHU RespirERA, FHU OncoAge, Biobank 0033-00025, University Côte d'Azur, Nice, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0431-9353
Daniel KazdalInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Center for Personalized Medicine (ZPM), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8187-3281
Tae-Jung KimDepartment of Hospital Pathology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3140-3681
Tony Kiat Hon LimDivision of Pathology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Aleš RyškaThe Fingerland Department of Pathology, Charles University Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-3051-2280
Angelica A SaettaMolecular Diagnostic Unit, First Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-4862-3413
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3655-143X
Giancarlo TronconeDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1630-5805
Michele BiscuolaVirgen del Rocio University Hospital, Institute of Biomedicine of Sevilla (IBiS), CSIC, University of Sevilla, CIBERONC, Seville, Spain.
Yi-Lin ChenDepartment of Pathology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-9323-062X
Gek San TanDivision of Pathology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Charles Hugo MarquetteDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, University Cote d'Azur, CHU de Nice, IHU RespirERA, Nice, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0846-9941
Maria MichelliMolecular Diagnostic Unit, First Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-2755-1721
Arja Ter ElstDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Hana VošmikováThe Fingerland Department of Pathology, Charles University Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-8595-3991
Joshua KappAmgen (Europe), Rotkreuz, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2804-9418
Sebastian Gonzalez-McQuireAmgen (Europe), Rotkreuz, Switzerland.
Andromachi Giannopoulou *Amgen (Europe), Rotkreuz, Switzerland.
Jean Marie FranziniLife Sciences Division, BIP Consulting, Milan, Italy.
Victoria Lucia Rabsiun AramburuLife Sciences Division, BIP Consulting, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0009-0003-4498-7206
Anna BaggiLife Sciences Division, BIP Consulting, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8716-2234
Albrecht StenzingerInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Center for Personalized Medicine (ZPM), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1001-103X

Funding

Amgen (Europe), Rotkreuz, Switzerland
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current European/US guidelines recommend that molecular testing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) be performed using next-generation sequencing (NGS). However, the global uptake of NGS is limited, largely owing to reimbursement constraints. We compared real-world costs of NGS and single-gene testing (SGT) in nonsquamous aNSCLC. This observational study was conducted across 10 pathology centers in 10 different countries worldwide. Biomarker data collected via structured questionnaires (1 January-31 December 2021) were used to feed micro-costing analyses for three scenarios ['Starting Point' (SP; 2021-2022), 'Current Practice' (CP; 2023-2024), and 'Future Horizons' (FH; 2025-2028)] in both a real-world model, comprising all biomarkers tested by each center, and a standardized model, comprising the same sets of biomarkers across centers. Testing costs (including retesting) encompassed personnel costs, consumables, equipment, and overheads. Overall, 4,491 patients with aNSCLC were evaluated. Mean per-patient costs decreased for NGS relative to SGT over time, with real-world model costs 18% lower for NGS than for SGT in the SP scenario, and 26% lower for NGS than for SGT in the CP scenario. Mean per-biomarker costs also decreased over time for NGS relative to SGT. In the standardized model, the tipping point for the minimum number of biomarkers required for NGS to result in cost savings (per patient) was 10 and 12 in the SP and CP scenarios, respectively. Retesting had a negligible impact on cost analyses, and results were robust to variation in cost parameters. This study provides robust real-world global evidence for cost savings with NGS-based panels over SGT to evaluate predictive biomarkers in nonsquamous aNSCLC when the number of biomarkers to be tested exceeds 10. Widespread adoption of NGS may enable more efficient use of limited healthcare resources.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungGenetic TestingHealth Care CostsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingLung NeoplasmsAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkers, Tumorcost comparisonnext‐generation sequencingNSCLCprecision medicinepredictive biomarkersingle‐gene testing

Identifiers

PMID40052485
PMCPMC11886603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.