Cost of genetic testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment associated with polymerase chain reaction versus next-generation sequencing biomarker testing for genomic alterations in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
J Med Econ
; 27(1): 292-303, 2024.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-38391239
ABSTRACT
AIMS:
To assess US payers' per-patient cost of testing associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) biomarker testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), including costs of testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment initiation.METHODS:
A decision tree model considered biomarker testing for genomic alterations using either NGS, sequential PCR testing, or hotspot panel PCR testing. Literature-based model inputs included time-to-test results, costs for testing/medical care, costs of delaying care, costs of immunotherapy [IO]/chemotherapy [CTX] initiation prior to receiving test results, and costs of suboptimal treatment initiation after test results (i.e. costs of first-line IO/CTX in patients with actionable mutations that were undetected by PCR that would have been identified with NGS). The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration, time to appropriate therapy initiation, and per-patient costs were estimated for NGS and PCR strategies combined.RESULTS:
In a modeled cohort of 1,000,000 members (25% Medicare, 75% commercial), an estimated 1,119 had mNSCLC and received testing. The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration was 45.9% for NGS and 40.0% for PCR testing. Mean per-patient costs were lowest for NGS ($8,866) compared to PCR ($18,246), with lower delayed care costs of $1,301 for NGS compared to $3,228 for PCR, and lower costs of IO/CTX initiation prior to receiving test results (NGS $2,298; PCR$5,991). Cost savings, reaching $10,496,220 at the 1,000,000-member plan level, were driven by more rapid treatment with appropriate therapy for patients tested with NGS (2.1 weeks) compared to PCR strategies (5.2 weeks).LIMITATIONS:
Model inputs/assumptions were based on published literature or expert opinion.CONCLUSIONS:
NGS testing was associated with greater cost savings versus PCR, driven by more rapid results, shorter time to appropriate therapy initiation, and minimized use of inappropriate therapies while awaiting and after test results.Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas
/
Neoplasias Pulmonares
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2024
Tipo de documento:
Article