ArticleNPJ precision oncology2025
Comparative cost analysis of a diagnostic multi-omics platform for decision support in advanced cancer - results from the Tumor Profiler Melanoma project.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-omics-driven precision medicine.iMeta · 2026Review
- Mapping the path to clinical implementation of multi-omics.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Multi-Omics for Predicting Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Response and Resistance.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While advances in the understanding of tumor biology through multi-omics profiling hold the promise of substantially improving patient outcomes, the cost implications of such strategies remain unclear. We therefore performed a comparative cost analysis of patients treated either within the Tumor Profiler (TuPro) melanoma project or from a control cohort who received treatment after standard next-generation sequencing testing. After adjustment of cohorts through inverse probability of treatment weighting, we found no evidence of statistically significant differences in total costs between the two cohorts (95% confidence interval -10% to +67%). Importantly, treatment costs (95% confidence interval -28% to +41%) were similar between the two cohorts. In conclusion, we found no evidence that treatment recommendations guided by advanced multi-omics profiling led to significantly higher treatment costs in a Swiss context.
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.