Observational studyBMJ open2025
Impact of comprehensive genomic profiling and molecular tumour board on costs and access to tailored therapies: real-world observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance and Clinical Benefit of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of GI Tumors in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Proactive identification of candidates for newly approved targeted therapies using a clinical decision support program.The oncologist · 2026Article
- The role of the molecular tumor board: learnings from the ROME trial.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Non-small cell lung cancer research: advances and persistent challenges.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Economic Evaluation of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in an Advanced Solid Cancer Population.JAMA network open · 2025Observational
- Circulating tumor DNA in cholangiocarcinoma: current clinical applications and future perspectives.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is limited evidence on the economic implications of assessing patients' access to personalised treatments through Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) and Molecular Tumour Board (MTB), prompting the need to analyse their impact on the cost of the cancer diagnostic journey (from hospital admission to MTB evaluation) and accessibility to personalised therapies.
designRetrospective observational cohort.
settingPatients discussed from April 2020 to September 2021 by the institutional MTB operating at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, an Italian centre of excellence in oncology pertaining to the national health system.
participants676 patients focused on: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and gastro-oesophageal carcinoma (GEC). We defined two different scenarios: (1) patients tested with small Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) panels (≤60 biomarkers) vs (2) patients tested with comprehensive panels (>60 biomarkers). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We measured (1) patients' eligibility to personalised therapies based on genomic data obtained using targeted somatic NGS panels, (2) MTB cost and the overall diagnostic journey cost and (3) the cost to find a patient eligible to access personalised treatments.
resultsTumour profiling with comprehensive NGS panels improved patients' eligibility to personalised therapies compared with small panels (NSCLC: 39% comprehensive panel vs 37% small panel; CCA: 43% vs 17%; PC: 35% vs 3%; GEC: 40% vs 0%). The overall diagnostic journey cost per patient was between 3.2K and 7.4K (NSCLC: 7.4K comprehensive panel vs 6.4K small panel; CCA: 4.9K vs 3.7K; PC: 5.8K vs 4.5K; GEC: 4.2K vs 3.2K). MTB discussion accounted for only 2-3% of the diagnostic journey cost per patient (around 113€/patient). The cost to find patient eligible for personalised treatments varied significantly according to panel size and tumour setting (NSCLC: 5K comprehensive panel vs 2.8K small panel; CCA: 4.4K vs 4.4K; PC: 5.5K vs 27K; GEC: 5.2K vs not measurable since none of the patients analysed with small NGS panels were eligible). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: MTB discussion of genomic data obtained with NGS comprehensive panels significantly increases patient eligibility to targeted therapies and optimise the cost to find a patient eligible to personalised treatments, mainly for CCA, PC and GEC patients.
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.