Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 10, 2026

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Molecular Biomarker Testing for Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Published on: September 8, 2023
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.
Abstract:
Molecular testing informs therapy selection for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) providing access to better treatments. However, the costs and benefits of alternative specimens and testing options are unknown. We modelled the cost-effectiveness of four molecular testing strategies involving combinations of biopsy (tissue aspirate versus liquid), sample (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded cell block, cytology smears or cell-free DNA) and molecular test (single-gene, small panel or large panel). Outcomes included health system costs, life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from 5,000 Monte Carlo simulations. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and budget impact analyses were also undertaken. Over 5 years, the predicted mean costs per person (for combined tissue acquisition, testing and subsequent treatment) ranged from AU$87,915 for standard care to AU$98,712 for cytology smears and large panel sequencing. Outcomes were lowest for single-gene or small gene panel strategies (1.70-1.75 QALYs) and highest for the large-panel strategies (1.82-1.88 QALYs). Compared with standard care, the incremental cost per QALY gained ranged from $59,983 (95% uncertainty interval (UI): AU$48,598, $79,664) to AU$70,840 (95% UI: AU$57,697, AU$87,937). Findings were most sensitive to quality-of-life estimates and targeted therapy costs but not to biopsy, sampling or molecular testing costs. The budget impact of these new diagnostics is not inconsequential with costs up to 64% higher than those for current standard care. For people with advanced NSCLC, alternative sampling and comprehensive genomic testing combinations are potentially cost-effective in Australia.
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.
More Related Videos
05:17Detection of Targetable Alterations in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer using Next-generation Sequencing
Published on: October 10, 2025
13:24Integration of Wet and Dry Bench Processes Optimizes Targeted Next-generation Sequencing of Low-quality and Low-quantity Tumor Biopsies
Published on: April 11, 2016