Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients
BACKGROUND: The treatment of choice for advanced non–small cell lung cancer is selected according to the presence of specific alterations. Patients should undergo molecular testing for relevant modifications and the mutational status of EGFR and translocation of ALK and ROS1 are commonly tested to o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7489015/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32928143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07240-2 |
_version_ | 1783581804945473536 |
---|---|
author | Schluckebier, Luciene Caetano, Rosangela Garay, Osvaldo Ulises Montenegro, Giuliana T. Custodio, Marcelo Aran, Veronica Gil Ferreira, Carlos |
author_facet | Schluckebier, Luciene Caetano, Rosangela Garay, Osvaldo Ulises Montenegro, Giuliana T. Custodio, Marcelo Aran, Veronica Gil Ferreira, Carlos |
author_sort | Schluckebier, Luciene |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The treatment of choice for advanced non–small cell lung cancer is selected according to the presence of specific alterations. Patients should undergo molecular testing for relevant modifications and the mutational status of EGFR and translocation of ALK and ROS1 are commonly tested to offer the best intervention. In addition, the tests costs should also be taken in consideration. Therefore, this work was performed in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a unique exam using NGS (next generation sequencing) versus other routinely used tests which involve RT-PCR and FISH. METHODS: The target population was NSCLC, adenocarcinoma, and candidates to first-line therapy. Two strategies were undertaken, strategy 1 corresponded to sequential tests with EGFR RT-PCR, then FISH for ALK and ROS1. Strategy 2 differed from 1 in that ALK and ROS1 translocation testing were performed simultaneously by FISH. Strategy 3 considered single test next-generation sequencing, a platform that includes EGFR, ALK and ROS1 genes. A decision tree analysis was used to model genetic testing options. From the test results, a microsimulation model was nested to estimate survival outcomes and costs of therapeutic options. RESULTS: The use of NGS added 24% extra true cases as well as extra costs attributed to the molecular testing. The ICER comparing NGS with sequential tests was US$ 3479.11/correct case detected. The NGS improved a slight gain in life years and QALYs. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that, although precise, the molecular diagnosis by NGS of patients with advanced stage NSCLC adenocarcinoma histology was not cost-effective in terms of quality-adjusted life years from the perspective of the Brazilian supplementary health system. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7489015 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74890152020-09-16 Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients Schluckebier, Luciene Caetano, Rosangela Garay, Osvaldo Ulises Montenegro, Giuliana T. Custodio, Marcelo Aran, Veronica Gil Ferreira, Carlos BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: The treatment of choice for advanced non–small cell lung cancer is selected according to the presence of specific alterations. Patients should undergo molecular testing for relevant modifications and the mutational status of EGFR and translocation of ALK and ROS1 are commonly tested to offer the best intervention. In addition, the tests costs should also be taken in consideration. Therefore, this work was performed in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a unique exam using NGS (next generation sequencing) versus other routinely used tests which involve RT-PCR and FISH. METHODS: The target population was NSCLC, adenocarcinoma, and candidates to first-line therapy. Two strategies were undertaken, strategy 1 corresponded to sequential tests with EGFR RT-PCR, then FISH for ALK and ROS1. Strategy 2 differed from 1 in that ALK and ROS1 translocation testing were performed simultaneously by FISH. Strategy 3 considered single test next-generation sequencing, a platform that includes EGFR, ALK and ROS1 genes. A decision tree analysis was used to model genetic testing options. From the test results, a microsimulation model was nested to estimate survival outcomes and costs of therapeutic options. RESULTS: The use of NGS added 24% extra true cases as well as extra costs attributed to the molecular testing. The ICER comparing NGS with sequential tests was US$ 3479.11/correct case detected. The NGS improved a slight gain in life years and QALYs. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that, although precise, the molecular diagnosis by NGS of patients with advanced stage NSCLC adenocarcinoma histology was not cost-effective in terms of quality-adjusted life years from the perspective of the Brazilian supplementary health system. BioMed Central 2020-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7489015/ /pubmed/32928143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07240-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Schluckebier, Luciene Caetano, Rosangela Garay, Osvaldo Ulises Montenegro, Giuliana T. Custodio, Marcelo Aran, Veronica Gil Ferreira, Carlos Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients |
title | Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for egfr, alk, and ros1 versus next-generation sequencing (ngs) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7489015/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32928143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07240-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schluckebierluciene costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingcompaniondiagnostictestsforegfralkandros1versusnextgenerationsequencingngsinadvancedadenocarcinomalungcancerpatients AT caetanorosangela costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingcompaniondiagnostictestsforegfralkandros1versusnextgenerationsequencingngsinadvancedadenocarcinomalungcancerpatients AT garayosvaldoulises costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingcompaniondiagnostictestsforegfralkandros1versusnextgenerationsequencingngsinadvancedadenocarcinomalungcancerpatients AT montenegrogiulianat costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingcompaniondiagnostictestsforegfralkandros1versusnextgenerationsequencingngsinadvancedadenocarcinomalungcancerpatients AT custodiomarcelo costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingcompaniondiagnostictestsforegfralkandros1versusnextgenerationsequencingngsinadvancedadenocarcinomalungcancerpatients AT aranveronica costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingcompaniondiagnostictestsforegfralkandros1versusnextgenerationsequencingngsinadvancedadenocarcinomalungcancerpatients AT gilferreiracarlos costeffectivenessanalysiscomparingcompaniondiagnostictestsforegfralkandros1versusnextgenerationsequencingngsinadvancedadenocarcinomalungcancerpatients |