Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40643914›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Biomarker Testing Approaches, Treatment Selection, and Cost of Care Among Adults With Advanced Cancer.

Stacey DaCosta Byfield, Bela Bapat, Laura Becker, Carolina Reyes, Ismini Chatzitheofilou, Brock E Schroeder, Damon Hostin, John Fox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Findings from the 2025 AMCP Foundation Symposium: Health Optimization 2.0.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

8 authors.

Stacey DaCosta ByfieldOptum, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Bela BapatIllumina Inc, San Diego, California.
Laura BeckerOptum, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Carolina ReyesIllumina Inc, San Diego, California.
Ismini ChatzitheofilouIllumina Inc, San Diego, California.
Brock E SchroederIllumina Inc, San Diego, California.
Damon HostinIllumina Inc, San Diego, California.
John FoxIllumina Inc, San Diego, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomarkers, TumorHealth Care CostsNeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID40643914
PMCPMC12254893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.