RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Although high-throughput sequencing is revolutionising medicine, data on the actual cost of whole exome sequencing (WES) applications are needed. We aimed at assessing the cost of WES at a French cancer institute in 2015 and 2018. METHODS: Actual costs of WES application in oncology research were determined using both micro-costing and gross-costing for the years 2015 and 2018, before and after the acquisition of a new sequencer. The entire workflow process of a WES test was tracked, and the number and unit price of each resource were identified at the most detailed level, from library preparation to bioinformatics analyses. In addition, we conducted an ad hoc analysis of the bioinformatics storage costs of data issued from WES analyses. RESULTS: The cost of WES has decreased substantially, from 1921 per sample (i.e. cost of 3842 per patient) in 2015 to 804 per sample (i.e. cost of 1,608 per patient) in 2018, representing a decrease of 58%. In the meantime, the cost of bioinformatics storage has increased from 19,836 to 200,711. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that WES cost has decreased significantly in recent years. WES has become affordable, even though clinical utility and efficiency still need to be confirmed.
Assuntos
Neoplasias , Patologia Molecular , Custos e Análise de Custo , Sequenciamento de Nucleotídeos em Larga Escala , Humanos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/genética , Sequenciamento do ExomaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Molecular tumour profiling technologies have become increasingly important in the era of precision medicine, but their routine use is limited by their accessibility, cost, and tumour material availability. It is therefore crucial to assess their relative added value to optimize the sequence and combination of such technologies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the MOSCATO-01 trial, we investigated the added value of whole exome sequencing (WES) in patients that did not present any molecular abnormality on array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and targeted gene panel sequencing (TGPS) using cancer specific panels. The pathogenicity potential and actionability of mutations detected on WES was assessed. RESULTS: Among 420 patients enrolled between December 2011 and December 2013, 283 (67%) patients were analysed for both TGPS and aCGH. The tumour sample of 25 (8.8%) of them presented a flat (or low-dynamic) aCGH profile and no pathogenic mutation on TGPS. We selected the first eligible 10 samples-corresponding to a heterogeneous cohort of different tumour types-to perform WES. This allowed identifying eight mutations of interest in two patients: FGFR3, PDGFRB, and CREBBP missense single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in an urothelial carcinoma; FGFR2, FBXW7, TP53, and MLH1 missense SNVs as well as an ATM frameshift mutation in a squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. The FGFR3 alteration had been previously described as an actionable activating mutation and might have resulted in treatment by an FGFR inhibitor. CREBBP and ATM alterations might also have suggested a therapeutic orientation towards epigenetic modifiers and ataxia-telangectasia and Rad3-related inhibitors, respectively. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic added value of performing WES on tumour samples that do not harbour any genetic abnormality on TGPS and aCGH might be limited and variable according to the histotype. Alternative techniques, including RNASeq and methylome analysis, might be more informative in selected cases.