ArticleHealth services research2026
Determining the Survival Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Multi-Gene Panel Sequencing in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With Super Learning Approaches.
Article in Health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Determining the Survival Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Multi-Gene Panel Sequencing in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With Super Learning Approaches.Health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-gene panel sequencing compared to single-gene KRAS testing for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). STUDY SETTING AND
designBritish Columbia, Canada (BC) is a provincial single-payer public healthcare system, and it was the first province to publicly reimburse multi-gene sequencing for mCRC. Panels expand treatment de-escalation by expanding RAS testing for more precise targeting of anti-EGFR therapies. Reimbursement of panels remains unequal across healthcare systems given uncertain clinical and economic impacts. Our quasi-experimental study design followed the target trial emulation approach, emulating random treatment assignment with two different methods to examine the sensitivity of estimates: inverse probability of treatment weighting estimated with super learning (SL-IPTW) and 1:1 genetic algorithm-based matching, a machine learning approach. We then estimated mean three-year survival time and costs (public healthcare payer perspective; 2021CAD) and calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for life-years gained (LYG) at $50,000/LYG using weighted linear regression and nonparametric bootstrapping, also accounting for inverse probability of censoring weights. Our sensitivity analysis estimated LYG using targeted minimum-based loss estimation (TMLE), a doubly robust approach that also uses super learning. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTICAL SAMPLE: Patient-level linked administrative health databases capturing cancer and non-cancer care for all BC adults with a metastatic colorectal cancer between 2016 and 2019. PRINCIPAL
findingsOur study included 892 patients (84.3%) receiving multi-gene panels and 166 (15.7%) receiving single-gene testing. INMB estimates were similar for SL-IPTW ($20,397; 95% CI: $9317, $34,862) and matching ($19,569; 95% CI: $8509, $31,447), with 99.3% and 98.8% probabilities, respectively, of panels being cost-effective. We found statistically significant survival benefits with LYG of 0.31 (SL-IPTW; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.54), 0.25 (matching; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.47) and 0.19 (TMLE; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.37).
conclusionsSurvival impacts were robust to super learning approaches. Real-world evidence demonstrates that reimbursing multi-gene sequencing for more precise targeting of mCRC treatments provides value for healthcare systems and clinically important benefits to 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.