Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 18, 2026
Author Spotlight: Advancements in Molecular Biomarker Testing for Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Published on: September 8, 2023
Cost-effectiveness of multiplexed predictive biomarker screening in non-small-cell lung cancer
Dorothy Romanus1, Stephanie Cardarella, David Cutler
1*Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts; †Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; ‡Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; §Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; ‖Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women' Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and ¶Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Introduction:
Population-wide screening for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements to inform cancer therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is recommended by guidelines. We estimated cost-effectiveness of multiplexed predictive biomarker screening in metastatic NSCLC from a societal perspective in the United States.
Methods:
We constructed a microsimulation model to compare the life expectancy and costs of multiplexed testing and molecularly guided therapy versus treatment with cisplatin-pemetrexed (CisPem). All testing interventions included a two-step algorithm of concurrent EGFR mutation and ALK overexpression testing with immunohistochemistry followed by ALK rearrangement confirmation with a fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for immunohistochemistry-positive results. Three strategies were included: "Test-treat" approach, where molecularly guided therapy was initiated after obtainment of test results; "Empiric switch therapy," with concurrent initiation of CisPem and testing and immediate switch to test-result conditional treatment after one cycle of CisPem; and "Empiric therapy" approach in which CisPem was continued for four cycles before start of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor.
Results:
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for "Test-treat" compared with treatment with CisPem was $136,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Both empiric treatment approaches had less favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. "Test-treat" and "Empiric switch therapy" yielded higher expected outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years and life-years than "Empiric therapy." These results were robust across plausible ranges of model inputs.
Conclusion:
From a societal perspective, our cost-effectiveness results support the value of multiplexed genetic screening and molecularly guided therapy in metastatic NSCLC.
