ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2025
A cost-effectiveness analysis model of actionable genomic alteration testing strategies incorporating different modalities and sizes of next-generation sequencing panels in non-small-cell lung cancer.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prompt identification of actionable genomic alterations (AGAs) is essential in guiding treatment decisions in newly diagnosed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Objectives: We aimed to determine the optimal testing strategy in terms of proportion of AGAs detected, time-to-treatment decision (TTTD) and average costs/patient in Singapore, a high-frequency AGA population. Design: A model was constructed to evaluate AGA testing strategies, comparing the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of each strategy. Methods: The 24 strategies studies included (1) upfront tissue/plasma next-generation sequencing (NGS) alone (small/medium/large panel), (2) exclusionary tissue single-gene testing (EGFR, ALK and ROS1) followed by tissue/plasma NGS, (3) exclusionary plasma EGFR followed by tissue or plasma NGS, (4) sequential single-gene testing followed by tissue/plasma NGS, (5) exclusionary or sequential testing without NGS and (6) small panel tissue NGS with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for ALK, ROS1, RET and MET. Literature review was performed to determine the incidence of NSCLC and the prevalence of each AGA in the population; costs, gene coverage and turnaround times were sourced through market research. Results: AGAs and EGFR mutations occurred in 76.7% and 56.0% of patients, respectively. Upfront medium panel tissue NGS detected all AGAs at USD1813/patient, with a TTTD of 7 days-no benefit was seen from using large panel tissue NGS at a higher cost. Exclusionary tissue testing followed by medium panel tissue NGS detected 98.9% of AGAs at USD1506/patient, with a TTTD of 14.9 days. Exclusionary plasma EGFR testing followed by medium panel tissue NGS detected 98.3% of AGAs at USD1047/patient, with a TTTD of 8.4 days. Upfront small panel tissue NGS with FISH also detected 98.3% of AGAs at a cost of USD798/patient, with a TTTD of 14 days. Conclusion: In our high EGFR-mutation prevalence population, exclusionary plasma EGFR followed by medium panel tissue NGS was cost-effective. Our analysis provides insight on NGS testing strategies of different gene panel sizes and sample types.
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.