Cost-effectiveness analysis of four sampling and genomic testing strategies for patients with advanced non-small-cell

Louisa G Collins1, Peter T Simpson2, Daniel Lindsay3

  • 1Viertel Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia; QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Qld, Australia; Faculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.

Pathology
|April 8, 2026
PubMed

Insights

Comprehensive genomic testing for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using alternative samples is potentially cost-effective. Large panel sequencing offers better outcomes, despite higher initial costs compared to standard care.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Health Economics
  • Genomics

Background:

  • Molecular testing is crucial for guiding non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy.
  • The cost-effectiveness of various biopsy and molecular testing strategies for NSCLC remains unclear.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To model and compare the cost-effectiveness of four distinct molecular testing strategies for advanced NSCLC.
  • To evaluate the impact of different biopsy types, sample sources, and molecular test panel sizes on health system costs and patient outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • A cost-effectiveness model using 5,000 Monte Carlo simulations was developed.
  • Four strategies were compared: combinations of biopsy (tissue vs. liquid), sample (cell block, cytology smears, cfDNA), and molecular test (single-gene, small panel, large panel).
  • Analyses included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and budget impact assessments.

Main Results:

  • Mean costs over 5 years ranged from AU$87,915 (standard care) to AU$98,712 (cytology smears with large panel).
  • Large panel testing yielded higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (1.82-1.88) compared to single-gene or small panels (1.70-1.75).
  • Incremental cost per QALY gained ranged from AU$59,983 to AU$70,840, with budget impact up to 64% higher than standard care.

Conclusions:

  • Alternative sampling methods and comprehensive genomic testing are potentially cost-effective for advanced NSCLC in Australia.
  • The findings suggest that larger gene panels provide superior outcomes, justifying their consideration despite increased costs.
  • Cost-effectiveness is sensitive to quality-of-life estimates and targeted therapy costs, not significantly to biopsy or testing costs themselves.