Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 4, 2026

Detection of Rare Mutations in CtDNA Using Next Generation Sequencing
Published on: August 24, 2017
Health Economic Evaluations of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review
Mingjun Rui1, Yingcheng Wang1, Joyce H S You1
1School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Background:
Cancer detection remains a significant global healthcare challenge, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a biomarker for noninvasive cancer screening.
Objective:
This systematic review aimed to describe health economic evaluations of ctDNA for cancer screening.
Methods:
A comprehensive literature search was performed (following PRISMA guidelines) across MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Center for Review and Dissemination. The review included full-scale health economic analyses such as cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, and cost-consequence analyses. The quality of the included reports was assessed using CHEERS 2022 standards, and each report was categorized as excellent, very good, good, or insufficient.
Results:
Eighteen studies were selected, including four ctDNA tests (EBV-DNA, cf-DNA, mSEPT9, and mt-sDNA) for three types of cancer screening: nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) (2; 11.11%), breast cancer (BC) (1; 5.56%), and colorectal cancer (CRC) (15; 83.33%). Five studies (27.78%) found ctDNA cost-effective for CRC screening (mt-sDNA (with higher uptake than conventional tests) versus fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy (n = 4); mSEPT9 versus computed tomography colonoscopy (CTC) (n = 1)). Thirteen studies (72.22%) found ctDNA not cost-effective for NPC (EBV-DNA versus no screening (n = 2)); BC (cf-DNA versus conventional testing (n = 1)); CRC (mSEPT9 versus FIT or colonoscopy (n = 2)); mt-sDNA versus FIT or colonoscopy (n = 5); mSEPT9 or mt-sDNA versus conventional tests (n = 3)). The CHEERS assessment found all reports in the "very good" category.
Conclusion:
All ctDNA tests were generally not cost-effective comparing to conventional screening methods, except when the mt-sDNA uptake was higher than the comparators or when mSEPT9 was compared with CTC.
Trial Registration:
CRD42023477732.
Related Concept Videos
Cancer-Critical Genes II: Tumor Suppressor Genes
When the function of certain critical genes, especially those involved in cell cycle regulation and cell growth signaling cascades, gets disrupted, it upsets the cell cycle progression. Such cells with unchecked cell cycles start proliferating uncontrollably and eventually develop into tumors.
Such genes that act...
Cancer Survival Analysis

