Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 7, 2026
Next Generation Sequencing for the Detection of Actionable Mutations in Solid and Liquid Tumors
Published on: September 20, 2016
Economic Evaluation of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in an Advanced Solid Cancer Population
Lucas F van Schaik1,2, Brigitte Maes3,4, Pieter-Jan Volders3,4
1Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Importance:
Developments in genomic profiling introduced larger gene panels with decreasing sequencing costs. Although the feasibility of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) has been demonstrated, its health economic impact remains uncertain.
Objective:
To provide insights into the costs related to clinical implementation of CGP-based advice in a large prospective cohort.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
In this economic evaluation of a prospective Belgian multicenter observational study (Belgian Approach of Local Laboratory Extensive Tumor Testing [BALLETT]), a decision tree was designed to illustrate costs and outcomes adopting a diagnostic time horizon. The evaluation also included a future evaluation scenario comparing standard-of-care diagnostics with upfront CGP. This study included patients with advanced solid tumors enrolled in the BALLETT study between May 1, 2021, and October 31, 2023. Analyses were conducted using the entire study population and individual tumor types.
Exposure:
CGP followed by molecular tumor board (MTB) discussions to formulate treatment recommendations.
Main Outcomes And Measures:
Model outcomes were total diagnostic costs and the percentage of patients with actionable targets, MTB recommendations, and matched treatments. Incremental cost-consequence ratios were calculated.
Results:
A total of 814 patients with advanced tumors (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [12.3] years; 452 female [55.5%]) participated in the study. The mean diagnostic costs for patients of the BALLETT cohort were €2147. Actionable targets were identified in 621 patients (76%), MTB recommendations were provided in 529 patients (65%), and 123 patients (15%) received a matched treatment. The diagnostic cost to match a CGP-matched treatment was €14 249. This cost varied between specific tumor types (€9952 for lung cancer to €20 377 for colon cancer). Sensitivity analyses showed that these cost-consequence ratios are most influenced by diagnostic cost and the uptake of MTB recommendations. In the scenario comparing upfront CGP and standard-of-care diagnostics, the incremental diagnostic cost to match a treatment was estimated to be slightly lower (€13 936).
Conclusions And Relevance:
This economic evaluation of CGP in patients with advanced cancer estimated the diagnostic cost to match a treatment. CGP-matched treatment cost and benefit requirements were estimated under which CGP was cost-effective, thereby providing health care decision-makers with relevant economic evidence for decision-making.
