ArticleOncology and therapy2026
Evaluating the Cost of Genomic Testing for Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology.
Article in Oncology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expected costs and benefits of genetic counselling and germline genetic testing in metastatic prostate cancer.Human genetics · 2026Article
- Clinical harm from failure to deploy personalized medicine for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- AI-driven dual-task prediction model for co-stratifying efficacy and toxicity in NSCLC immunotherapy.PLOS digital health · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGenomic profiling is used in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of malignancies. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is a next-generation sequencing (NGS) approach that can test multiple genes simultaneously, potentially saving time, money, and sample material. Costs associated with genomic profiling could be a prohibitive barrier to the widespread implementation of genomic testing in routine clinical practice.
methodsA cost calculator was developed to demonstrate the cost difference between targeted panel NGS and individual single-gene testing (SGT). The calculator evaluates the cost of testing for more than 30 biomarkers included in the 2024 update of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets. Sensitivity and specificity data for NGS and SGT, biomarker prevalence, and the number needed to predict (NNP) metric were used to estimate the cost of each test per correctly identified patient (CCIP) in different types of tumors. Calculator results are available in EUR (€) and USD ($), inflated to 2025 values. The calculator generates results for 14 different advanced malignancies.
resultsAt base case in EUR (€), CCIP was lower with NGS than sequential SGT for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), advanced prostate cancer, advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CC), advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), advanced thyroid cancer, and cancer of unknown primary origin (CUP). In USD ($) all of the aforementioned tumors except for advanced CC had more favorable CCIPs for NGS, compared with sequential SGT.
conclusionThe insights provided by this calculator demonstrate lower costs using NGS compared with SGT for many malignancies, which suggests that opportunities exist for the expanded use of NGS in routine clinical practice for molecular profiling of patients with cancer.
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.