ArticleJAMA network open2025
Biomarker Testing Approaches, Treatment Selection, and Cost of Care Among Adults With Advanced Cancer.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic evaluations of next-generation sequencing for targeted therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Analytical and Clinical Validation of the Oncomine Dx Express Test, an In Vitro Diagnostic-Labeled Assay, for Genomic Profiling of FFPE Tumor Samples.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Article
- Targeted Therapy, Immunotherapy, and Molecular Testing in Advanced Solid Tumors: A Medicare Analysis.Cancer medicine · 2026Observational
- Payer coverage principles for precision medicine biomarker testing in oncology.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Commercial price variation in precision oncology testing across US hospitals.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Access to Guideline-Concordant Oncology Genomic Testing: A Qualitative Study of Black Cancer Patients and Oncology Providers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Findings from the 2025 AMCP Foundation Symposium: Health Optimization 2.0.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Medicare Insurance Type and Broad Genomic Profiling in Metastatic Cancer.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Review
- Unique Features of a Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Panel: Expanding Treatment Options in a Value-Based Community Oncology Network.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Liquid Biopsy and Multi-Omic Biomarkers in Breast Cancer: Innovations in Early Detection, Therapy Guidance, and Disease Monitoring.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- CKDs at the Crossroads: From Failures to Future Therapies.Kidney international reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Clinical guidelines recommend biomarker testing to identify patients eligible for targeted therapy. However, evidence suggests that biomarker testing rates are below guideline recommendations, which has been associated with worsened clinical outcomes, including overall survival. Objectives: To identify patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer receiving comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP), non-CGP, or no biomarker testing and to explore the change in rates of testing over time and compare targeted therapy rates and health care costs during first-line therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the deidentified Optum Labs Data Warehouse, a claims database of longitudinal health information on commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage enrollees, to identify patients diagnosed with advanced cancer between January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2022. The study included 26 311 adults with newly diagnosed advanced cancer (breast, colorectal, gastric, non-small cell lung, ovarian, and pancreatic) and continuous enrollment in a commercial or Medicare Advantage health plan for 12 months before and 6 months after their first advanced cancer diagnosis. Data were analyzed between February 1, 2023, and March 31, 2024. Exposure: Biomarker testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Evidence of biomarker testing, the receipt of targeted therapy during first-line therapy, and per-patient, per-month (PPPM) costs during first-line therapy. Results: Among 26 311 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [11] years; 62% female; 70% Medicare Advantage enrollees), molecular testing rates were suboptimal (35% had evidence of molecular testing), but testing rates increased across time for most cancer types (from 32% in 2018 to 39% in 2021-2022). Patients with non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer with CGP testing were more likely to receive targeted therapy (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.31-1.90; P < .001) compared with patients who received non-CGP testing (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.58-3.47; P < .001). Costs among patients with CGP testing were not statistically different from those with non-CGP testing (cost ratios of 1.03; 95% CI, 0.91-1.17 [P = .63] for breast cancer, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.09 [P = .71] for colorectal cancer, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.87-1.40 [P = .42] for gastric cancer, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.13 [P = .054] for non-small cell lung, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.76-1.15 [P = .55] for ovarian cancer, and 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.21 [P = .98] for pancreatic cancer). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, although increasing over time, biomarker testing rates were suboptimal despite guideline recommendations and increasing insurance coverage for testing. Given the potential benefits of CGP testing, such as increasing rates of targeted therapy without increased treatment-related costs, increasing CGP testing may improve outcomes.
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.