Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Survivorship Care for Survivors of Hodgkin Lymphoma (INSIGHT Study): Protocol for a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study With a Quasi-Experimental Design.

BACKGROUND: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) occurs at young ages, with the highest incidence between 20 and 40 years. While cure rates have improved to 80%-90% over the past decades, survivors of HL are at substantial risk of late treatment-related complications, such as cardiovascular diseases, breast cancer, severe infections, and hypothyroidism. To reduce morbidity and mortality from late treatment effects, the Dutch Better care after lymphoma, Evaluation of long-term Treatment Effects and screening Recommendations (BETER) consortium developed a survivorship care program for 5-year survivors of HL that includes risk-based screening for and treatment of (risk factors for) late adverse events. Even though several cancer survivorship care programs have been established worldwide, there is a lack of knowledge about their effectiveness in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The Improving Nationwide Survivorship care Infrastructure and Guidelines after Hodgkin lymphoma Treatment (INSIGHT) study evaluates whether Dutch BETER survivorship care for survivors of HL decreases survivors' burden of disease from late adverse events after HL treatment and associated health care costs and improves their quality of life. METHODS: The INSIGHT study is a multicenter retrospective cohort study with a quasi-experimental design and prospective follow-up, embedded in the national BETER survivorship care infrastructure. The first BETER clinics started in 2013-2016 and several other centers started or will start BETER clinics in 2019-2024. This allows us to compare survivors who did and those who did not receive BETER survivorship care in the last decade. Survivors in the intervention group are matched to controls (n=450 per group) based on sex, age at diagnosis (±5 years), age in 2013 (±5 years), and treatment characteristics. The primary outcome is the burden of disease in disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, severe infections, and hypothyroidism. In a cost-effectiveness analysis, we will assess the cost of BETER survivorship care per averted or gained disability-adjusted life year and quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcomes are BETER clinic attendance, adherence to screening guidelines, and knowledge and distress about late effects among survivors of HL. Study data are collected from a survivor survey, a general practitioner survey, medical records, and through linkages with national disease registries. RESULTS: The study was funded in November 2020 and approved by the institutional review board of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in July 2021. We expect to finalize recruitment by October 2024, data collection by early 2025, and data analysis by May 2025. CONCLUSIONS: INSIGHT is the first evaluation of a comprehensive survivorship program using real-world data; it will result in new information on the (cost-)effectiveness of survivorship care in survivors of HL in clinical practice. The results of this study will be used to improve the BETER program where necessary and contribute to more effective evidence-based long-term survivorship care for lymphoma survivors. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55601.

Cost-effectiveness of treating advanced melanoma with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes based on an international randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: In a multicenter, open-label randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted in the Netherlands and Denmark, treatment with ex vivo-expanded tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL-NKI/CCIT) from autologous melanoma tumor compared with ipilimumab improved progression-free survival in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma after failure of first-line or second-line treatment. Based on this trial, we conducted a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: A Markov decision model was constructed to estimate expected costs (expressed in 2021€) and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of TIL-NKI/CCIT versus ipilimumab in the Netherlands. The Danish setting was assessed in a scenario analysis. A modified societal perspective was applied over a lifetime horizon. TIL-NKI/CCIT production costs were estimated via activity-based costing. Through sensitivity analyses, uncertainties and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean total undiscounted lifetime benefits were 4.47 life years (LYs) and 3.52 QALYs for TIL-NKI/CCIT and 3.33 LYs and 2.46 QALYs for ipilimumab. Total lifetime undiscounted costs in the Netherlands were €347,168 for TIL-NKI/CCIT (including €67,547 for production costs) compared with €433,634 for ipilimumab. Undiscounted lifetime cost in the Danish scenario were €337,309 and €436,135, respectively. This resulted in a dominant situation for TIL-NKI/CCIT compared with ipilimumab in both countries, meaning incremental QALYs were gained at lower costs. Survival probabilities, and utility in progressive disease affected the ICER most. CONCLUSION: Based on the data of a randomized phase 3 trial, treatment with TIL-NKI/CCIT in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma is cost-effective and cost-saving, both in the current Dutch and Danish setting. These findings led to inclusion of TIL-NKI/CCIT as insured care and treatment guidelines. Publicly funded development of the TIL-NKI/CCIT cell therapy shows realistic promise to further explore development of effective personalized treatment while warranting economic sustainability of healthcare systems.

Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of a Whole-Genome Sequencing-Based Biomarker for Treatment Selection in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Ineligible for Targeted Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform an early cost-effectiveness analysis of using a whole-genome sequencing-based tumor mutation burden (WGS-TMB), instead of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), for immunotherapy treatment selection in patients with non-squamous advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer ineligible for targeted therapy, from a Dutch healthcare perspective. METHODS: A decision-model simulating individual patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer was used to evaluate diagnostic strategies to select first-line immunotherapy only or the immunotherapy plus chemotherapy combination. Treatment was selected using PD-L1 [A, current practice], WGS-TMB [B], and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB [C]. Strategies D, E, and F take into account a patient's disease burden, in addition to PD-L1, WGS-TMB, and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB, respectively. Disease burden was defined as a fast-growing tumor, a high number of metastases, and/or weight loss. A threshold of 10 mutations per mega-base was used to classify patients into TMB-high and TMB-low groups. Outcomes were discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs measured from the start of first-line treatment to death. Healthcare costs includes drug acquisition, follow-up costs, and molecular diagnostic tests (i.e., standard diagnostic techniques and/or WGS for strategies involving TMB). Results were reported using the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY. Additional scenario and threshold analyses were performed. RESULTS: Strategy B had the lowest QALYs (1.84) and lowest healthcare costs (€120,800). The highest QALYs and healthcare costs were 2.00 and €140,400 in strategy F. In the base-case analysis, strategy A was cost effective with the highest net monetary benefit (€27,300), followed by strategy B (€26,700). Strategy B was cost effective when the cost of WGS testing was decreased by at least 24% or when immunotherapy results in an additional 0.5 year of life gained or more for TMB high compared with TMB low. Strategies C and F, which combined TMB and PD-L1 had the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €76,900) when the cost of WGS testing, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy acquisition were simultaneously reduced by at least 47%, 39%, and 43%, respectively. Furthermore, strategy C resulted in the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €39,900) in a scenario where patients with both PD-L1 low and TMB low were treated with chemotherapy instead of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of WGS-TMB is not cost effective compared to PD-L1 for immunotherapy treatment selection in non-squamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. WGS-TMB could become cost effective provided there is a reduction in the cost of WGS testing or there is an increase in the predictive value of WGS-TMB for immunotherapy effectiveness. Alternatively, a combination strategy of PD-L1 testing with WGS-TMB would be cost effective if used to support the choice to withhold immunotherapy in patients with a low expected benefit of immunotherapy.

Early Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Patients with Limited Peritoneal Carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 10 months when treated with systemic chemotherapy only. Cohort studies showed that cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) might improve the prognosis for gastric cancer patients with limited PC. Besides generating trial data on clinical effectiveness, it is crucial to timely collect information on economic aspects to guide the reimbursement decision-making process. No previous data have been published on the cost(-effectiveness) of CRS/HIPEC in this group of patients. Therefore, we performed an early model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of CRS/HIPEC for gastric cancer patients with limited PC in the Dutch setting. METHODS: We constructed a two-state (alive-dead) Markov transition model to evaluate costs and clinical outcomes from a Dutch healthcare perspective. Clinical outcomes, transition probabilities and utilities were derived from literature and verified by clinical experts in the field. Costs were measured using two available representative cohorts (2010-2017): one 'systemic chemotherapy only' cohort and one 'CRS/HIPEC' cohort (n = 10 each). Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were expressed as Euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We performed probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity, scenario, and value-of-information analyses using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €80,000/QALY, which reflects the Dutch norm for severe diseases. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, CRS/HIPEC yielded more QALYs (increment of 0.68) and more costs (increment of €34,706) compared with systemic chemotherapy only, resulting in an ICUR of €50,990/QALY. The probability that CRS/HIPEC was cost effective compared with systemic chemotherapy alone was 64%. To reduce uncertainty, the expected value of perfect information amounted to €4,021,468. The scenario analyses did not alter the results and showed that treatment costs, lifetime health-related quality of life and overall survival had the largest influence on the model. CONCLUSIONS: The presented early cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that adding CRS/HIPEC to systemic chemotherapy for gastric cancer patients with limited PC has a good chance of being cost-effectiveness compared with systemic chemotherapy alone when using a WTP of €80,000/QALY. However, there is substantial uncertainty in view of the current available data on effectiveness. Results from the ongoing phase III PERISCOPE II trial are therefore crucial for further decisions on treatment policy and its cost-effectiveness.

Targeted combination therapies in oncology: Challenging regulatory frameworks designed for monotherapies in Europe.

The pharmaceutical value chain, including clinical trials, pricing, access, and reimbursement, is designed for classical monotherapies. Although there has been a paradigm shift that increases the relevance of targeted combination therapies (TCTs), regulation and common practice have been slow to adapt. We explored access to 23 TCTs for advanced melanoma and lung cancer as reported by 19 specialists from 17 leading cancer institutions in nine European countries. We find heterogeneous patient access to TCTs between countries, differences in country-specific regulations, and differences in the clinical practice of melanoma and lung cancer. Regulation that is better tailored to the context of combinational therapies can increase equity in access across Europe and promote an evidence-based and authorized use of combinations.

High-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue to treat stage III homologous deficient breast cancer: factors influencing clinical implementation.

BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue (HDCT) is a promising treatment for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, homologous recombination deficient (HRD) breast cancer. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are currently under investigation in an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. To increase the chance of successful introduction of HDCT into daily clinical practice, we aimed to identify relevant factors for smooth implementation using an early comprehensive assessment framework. METHODS: This is a qualitative, multi-stakeholder, exploratory research using semi-structured interviews guided by the Constructive Technology Assessment model, which evaluates the quality of a novel health technology by clinical, economic, patient-related, and organizational factors. Stakeholders were recruited by purposeful stratified sampling and interviewed until sufficient content saturation was reached. Two researchers independently created themes, categories, and subcategories by following inductive coding steps, these were verified by a third researcher. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 stakeholders between June 2019 and April 2021. In total, five overarching themes and seventeen categories were identified. Important findings for optimal implementation included the structural identification and referral of all eligible patients, early integration of supportive care, multidisciplinary collaboration between- and within hospitals, (de)centralization of treatment aspects, the provision of information for patients and healthcare professionals, and compliance to new regulation for the BRCA1-like test. CONCLUSIONS: In anticipation of a positive reimbursement decision, we recommend to take the highlighted implementation factors into consideration. This might expedite and guide high-quality equitable access to HDCT for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, HRD breast cancer in the Netherlands.

A Micro-Costing Framework for Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Dutch Clinical Practice.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising new biomarker with multiple potential applications in cancer care. Estimating total cost of ctDNA testing is necessary for reimbursement and implementation, but challenging because of variations in workflow. We aimed to develop a micro-costing framework for consistent cost calculation of ctDNA testing. First, the foundation of the framework was built, based on the complete step-wise diagnostic workflow of ctDNA testing. Second, the costing method was set up, including costs for personnel, materials, equipment, overhead, and failures. Third, the framework was evaluated by experts and applied to six case studies, including PCR-, mass spectrometry-, and next-generation sequencing-based platforms, from three Dutch hospitals. The developed ctDNA micro-costing framework includes the diagnostic workflow from blood sample collection to diagnostic test result. The framework was developed from a Dutch perspective and takes testing volume into account. An open access tool is provided to allow for laboratory-specific calculations to explore the total costs of ctDNA testing specific workflow parameters matching the setting of interest. It also allows to straightforwardly assess the impact of alternative prices or assumptions on the cost per sample by simply varying the input parameters. The case studies showed a wide range of costs, from €168 to €7638 ($199 to $9124) per sample, and generated information. These costs are sensitive to the (coverage of) platform, setting, and testing volume.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Future Developments With Whole-Genome Sequencing for Patients With Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness, budget impact (BI), and impact of uncertainty of future developments concerning whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a clinical diagnostic test compared with standard of care (SoC) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: A total of 3 likely scenarios to take place within 5 years (according to experts) were simulated using a previously developed, peer reviewed, and published decision model. The scenarios concerned "WGS results used for treatment selection" (scenario 1), "WGS-based biomarker for immunotherapy" (scenario 2), and "off-label drug approval for WGS results" (scenario 3). Two diagnostic strategies of the original model, "SoC" and "WGS as a diagnostic test" (base model), were used to compare our scenarios with. Outcomes were reported for the base model, all scenarios separately, combined (combined unweighted), and weighted by likelihood (combined weighted). Cost-effectiveness, BI, and value of information analyses were performed for WGS compared with SoC. RESULTS: Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years for SoC in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer were €149 698 and 1.235. Incremental outcomes of WGS were €1529/0.002(base model), -€222/0.020(scenario 1), -€2576/0.023(scenario 2), €388/0.024(scenario 3), -€5041/0.060(combined unweighted), and -€1715/0.029(combined weighted). The annual BI for adopting WGS for this population in The Netherlands ranged between €682 million (combined unweighted) and €714 million (base model). The consequences of uncertainty amounted to €3.4 million for all scenarios (combined weighted) and to €699 000 for the diagnostic yield of WGS alone (combined weighted). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that it is likely for WGS to become cost-effective within the near future if it identifies more patients with actionable targets and show the impact of uncertainty regarding its diagnostic yield. Modeling future scenarios can be useful to consider early adoption of WGS while timely anticipating on unforeseen developments before final conclusions are reached.

Cost-utility analysis on robot-assisted and laparoscopic prostatectomy based on long-term functional outcomes.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is one of the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. However, controversy still exists on its added value. Based on a recent large-sample retrospective cluster study from the Netherlands showing significantly improved long-term urinary functioning after RARP compared to Laparoscopic RP (LRP), we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of RARP compared to LRP. A decision tree was constructed to measure the costs and effects from a Dutch societal perspective over a ~ 7 year time-horizon. The input was based on the aforementioned study, including patient-reported consumption of addition care and consumed care for ergonomic issues reported by surgeons. Intervention costs were calculated using a bottom-up costing analysis in 5 hospitals. Finally, a probabilistic-, one-way sensitivity- and scenario analyses were performed to show possible decision uncertainty. The intervention costs were €9964 for RARP and €7253 for LRP. Total trajectory costs were €12,078 for RARP and €10,049 for LRP. RARP showed higher QALYs compared to LRP (6.17 vs 6.11). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €34,206 per QALY gained, in favour of RARP. As a best-case scenario, when RARP is being centralized (> 150 cases/year), total trajectory costs decreased to €10,377 having a higher utilization, and a shorter procedure time and length of stay resulting in an ICUR of €3495 per QALY gained. RARP showed to be cost-effective compared to LRP based on data from a population-based, large scale study with 7 years of follow-up. This is a clear incentive to fully reimburse RARP, especially when hospitals provide RARP centralized.

[Clinical efficiency research with expensive drugs: doing more with less investment]. / Doelmatigheidsonderzoek naar dure geneesmiddelen.

Novel innovative drugs have improved disease control, survival and quality of life for many patients. The costs of these drugs, however, are extremely high and threaten the long-term affordability of our health care system. Efficient use of existing drugs can decrease drug expenditure whilst improving patients' quality of life at the same time. Efficiency adjustments should not compromise treatment efficacy and therefore, clinical research on the matter is crucial. In this article, we demonstrate that efficiency research is feasible, as exemplified by the SONIA study. We make the case for a 'revolving fund' in which savings from one study are used to fund a next one. A revolving fund thus stimulates efficiency research and capitalizes research investments in the interest of both patients and society.

Cell-Free DNA at Diagnosis for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Costs, Time to Diagnosis and Clinical Relevance.

Tissue biopsies can be burdensome and are only effective in 10-30% of patients with metastasized non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) might be an attractive alternative. We evaluated the costs, throughput time, and diagnostic yield of two diagnostic scenarios with tissue and cfDNA for mNSCLC patients, compared to diagnostics based on tissue biopsy alone. Data were retrieved from 209 stage IV NSCLC patients included in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands in the observational Lung cancer Early Molecular Assessment (LEMA) trial. Discrete event simulation was developed to compare three scenarios, using LEMA data as input where possible: (1) diagnostics with "tissue only"; (2) diagnostics with "cfDNA first", and subsequent tissue biopsy if required (negative for EGFR, BRAF ALK, ROS1); (3) cfDNA if tissue biopsy failed ("tissue first"). Scenario- and probabilistic analyses were performed to quantify uncertainty. In scenario 1, 84% (Credibility Interval [CrI] 70-94%) of the cases had a clinically relevant test result, compared to 93% (CrI 86-98%) in scenario 2, and 93% (CrI 86-99%) in scenario 3. The mean throughput time was 20 days (CrI 17-23) pp in scenario 1, 9 days (CrI 7-11) in scenario 2, and 19 days (CrI 16-22) in scenario 3. Mean costs were €2304 pp (CrI €2067-2507) in scenario 1, compared to €3218 (CrI €3071-3396) for scenario 2, and €2448 (CrI €2382-2506) for scenario 3. Scenarios 2 and 3 led to a reduction in tissue biopsies of 16% and 9%, respectively. In this process-based simulation analysis, the implementation of cfDNA for patients with mNSCLC resulted in faster completion of molecular profiling with more identified targets, with marginal extra costs in scenario 3.

Improving the Affordability of Anticancer Medicines Demands Evidence-Based Policy Solutions.

The high cost of many new anticancer medicines significantly impedes breakthrough discoveries from reaching patients. A commonly heard refrain is that high prices are necessary to compensate for the high costs of research and development (R&D). Yet, there are promising policy proposals aimed at improving affordability without compromising innovation. In seeking new policy solutions, we argue for a shift away from entrenched opinion toward an evidence-based discourse that is grounded in experiments and real-world pilot studies. We offer a novel perspective and practical recommendations on how empirical evidence could and should be gathered to inform evidence-based policy interventions that lead to sustainable medicine prices in oncology.See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Res Commun 2022;2:39-47).

Affordable Prices Without Threatening the Oncological R&D Pipeline-An Economic Experiment on Transparency in Price Negotiations.

The high prices of innovative medicines endanger access to care worldwide. Sustainable prices need to be affordable while sufficiently incentivizing research and development (R&D) investments. A proposed solution is increased transparency. Proponents argue that price and R&D cost confidentiality are drivers of high prices. On the contrary, supporters of confidentiality claim that confidentiality enables targeted discounts which make treatments affordable; moreover, pharmaceutical companies argue that R&D investments would suffer with more transparency. Despite the political relevance, limited empirical evidence exists on the effects of transparency regulations. We contribute to fill this gap with an experiment where we replicate the EU pharmaceutical market in a laboratory setting. In a randomized controlled study, we analyzed how participants, 400 students located in four European countries, negotiated in the current system of Price Secrecy in comparison with innovative bargaining settings where either prices only (Price Transparency) or prices and R&D costs (Full Transparency) were made transparent to buyers. We found that Price transparency had no statistically significant effect on average prices or number of patients treated and made R&D investments significantly smaller (-16.86%; P: 0.0024). On the other hand, Full Transparency reduced prices (-26%; P: 0.0004) and held the number of patients constant at the level of Price Secrecy. It produced price convergence between countries with low and high health budgets, and, despite lower prices, had no effect on R&D investments. Our findings provide novel evidence that combining price and R&D cost transparency could be an effective policy to contribute to sustainable medicine prices. See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Discov 2022;12:299-302).

Understanding the Costs of Surgery: A Bottom-Up Cost Analysis of Both a Hybrid Operating Room and Conventional Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, many hospitals have adopted hybrid operating rooms (ORs). As resources are limited, these ORs have to prove themselves in adding value. Current estimations on standard OR costs show great variety, while cost analyses of hybrid ORs are lacking. Therefore, this study aims to identify the cost drivers of a conventional and hybrid OR and take a first step in evaluating the added value of the hybrid OR. METHODS: A comprehensive bottom-up cost analysis was conducted in five Dutch hospitals taking into account: construction, inventory, personnel and overhead costs by means of interviews and hospital specific data. The costs per minute for both ORs were calculated using the utilization rates of the ORs. Cost drivers were identified by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The costs per minute for the conventional OR and the hybrid OR were €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10- €23.07), respectively. Total personnel and total inventory costs had most impact on the conventional OR costs. For the hybrid OR the costs were mostly driven by utilization rate, total inventory and construction costs. The results were incorporated in an open access calculation model to enable adjustment of the input parameters to a specific hospital or country setting. CONCLUSION: This study estimated a cost of €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10-€23.07) for the conventional and hybrid OR, respectively. The main factors influencing the OR costs are: total inventory costs, total construction costs, utilization rate, and total personnel costs. Our analysis can be used as a basis for future research focusing on evaluating value for money of this promising innovative OR. Furthermore, our results can inform surgeons, and decision and policy-makers in hospitals on the adoption and optimal utilization of new (hybrid) ORs.

Early Cost Effectiveness of Whole-Genome Sequencing as a Clinical Diagnostic Test for Patients with Inoperable Stage IIIB,C/IV Non-squamous Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbours many genetic aberrations that can be targeted with systemic treatments. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) can simultaneously detect these (and possibly new) molecular targets. However, the exact added clinical value of WGS is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the early cost effectiveness of using WGS in diagnostic strategies compared with currently used molecular diagnostics for patients with inoperable stage IIIB,C/IV non-squamous NSCLC from a Dutch healthcare perspective. METHODS: A decision tree represented the diagnostic pathway, and a cohort state transition model represented disease progression. Three diagnostic strategies were modelled: standard of care (SoC) alone, WGS as a diagnostic test, and SoC followed by WGS. Treatment effectiveness was based on a systematic review. Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analyses were performed, and threshold analyses (using €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was used to explore the early cost effectiveness of WGS. RESULTS: WGS as a diagnostic test resulted in more QALYs (0.002) and costs (€1534 [incremental net monetary benefit -€1349]), and SoC followed by WGS resulted in fewer QALYs (-0.002) and more costs (€1059 [-€1194]) compared with SoC alone. WGS as a diagnostic test was only cost effective if it was priced at €2000 per patient and identified 2.7% more actionable patients than SoC alone. Treating these additional identified patients with new treatments costing >€4069 per month decreased the probability of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that providing WGS as a diagnostic test is cost effective compared with SoC followed by WGS and SoC alone if costs for WGS decrease and additional patients with actionable targets are identified. This cost-effectiveness model can be used to incorporate new findings iteratively and to support ongoing decision making regarding the use of WGS in this rapidly evolving field.

Whole genome sequencing in oncology: using scenario drafting to explore future developments.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is not yet widely implemented due to uncertainties such as the required infrastructure and expertise, costs and reimbursements, and unknown pan-cancer clinical utility. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate possible future developments facilitating or impeding the use of WGS as a molecular diagnostic in oncology through scenario drafting. METHODS: A four-step process was adopted for scenario drafting. First, the literature was searched for barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of WGS. Second, they were prioritized by international experts, and third, combined into coherent scenarios. Fourth, the scenarios were implemented in an online survey and their likelihood of taking place within 5 years was elicited from another group of experts. Based on the minimum, maximum, and most likely (mode) parameters, individual Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) probability density functions were determined. Subsequently, individual opinions were aggregated by performing unweighted linear pooling, from which summary statistics were extracted and reported. RESULTS: Sixty-two unique barriers and facilitators were extracted from 70 articles. Price, clinical utility, and turnaround time of WGS were ranked as the most important aspects. Nine scenarios were developed and scored on likelihood by 18 experts. The scenario about introducing WGS as a clinical diagnostic with a lower price, shorter turnaround time, and improved degree of actionability, scored the highest likelihood (median: 68.3%). Scenarios with low likelihoods and strong consensus were about better treatment responses to more actionable targets (26.1%), and the effect of centralizing WGS (24.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current expert opinions, the implementation of WGS as a clinical diagnostic in oncology is heavily dependent on the price, clinical utility (both in terms of identifying actionable targets as in adding sufficient value in subsequent treatment), and turnaround time. These aspects and the optimal way of service provision are the main drivers for the implementation of WGS and should be focused on in further research. More knowledge regarding these factors is needed to inform strategic decision making regarding the implementation of WGS, which warrants support from all relevant stakeholders.

Micro-costing diagnostics in oncology: from single-gene testing to whole- genome sequencing.

Purpose: Predictive diagnostics play an increasingly important role in personalized medicine for cancer treatment. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS)-based treatment selection is expected to rapidly increase worldwide. This study aimed to calculate and compare the total cost of currently used diagnostic techniques and of WGS in treatment of non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), melanoma, colorectal cancer (CRC), and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) in the Netherlands.Methods: The activity-based costing (ABC) method was conducted to calculate total cost of included diagnostic techniques based on data provided by Dutch pathology laboratories and the Dutch-centralized cancer WGS facility. Costs were allocated to four categories: capital costs, maintenance costs, software costs, and operational costs.Results: The total cost per cancer patient per technique varied from € 58 (Sanger sequencing, three amplicons) to € 2925 (paired tumor-normal WGS). The operational costs accounted for the vast majority (over 90%) of the total per cancer patient technique costs.Conclusion: This study outlined in detail all costing aspects and cost prices of current and new diagnostic modalities used in treatment of NSCLC, melanoma, CRC, and GIST in the Netherlands. Detailed cost differences and value comparisons between these diagnostic techniques enable future economic evaluations to support decision-making.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surgery Versus Organ Preservation in Advanced Laryngeal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment decision-making for patients with laryngeal cancer consists of a complex trade-off between survival and quality of life. For decision makers on coverage and guidelines, costs come in addition to this equation. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of surgery (laryngectomy with or without radiotherapy) versus organ preservation (OP: radiotherapy, chemo- and/or bioradiation) in advanced laryngeal cancer patients from a healthcare perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model. For each modality, data on survival and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were sourced from relevant articles in agreement with experts, and national benchmark cost prices were included regarding treatment, follow-up, adverse events, and rehabilitation. RESULTS: Total QALYs of the surgical approach (6.59) were substantially higher compared to the OP approach (5.44). Total lifetime costs were higher for the surgical approach compared to the OP approach, namely €95,881 versus €47,233. The surgical approach was therefore more effective and more costly compared to OP, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €42,383/QALY. CONCLUSION: Based on current literature, surgical treatment was cost-effective compared to OP in advanced laryngeal cancer within most willingness-to-pay thresholds. The study provides information on the survival adjusted for quality of life in combination with costs of two different approaches for advanced laryngeal cancer, relevant for patients, physicians, and policy makers. As financial toxicity is a relevant aspect in this population, collection of real-world data on country-specific costs and utilities is strongly recommended to enable further generalization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A. Laryngoscope, 131:E509-E517, 2021.

Study protocol: Whole genome sequencing Implementation in standard Diagnostics for Every cancer patient (WIDE).

BACKGROUND: 'Precision oncology' can ensure the best suitable treatment at the right time by tailoring treatment towards individual patient and comprehensive tumour characteristics. In current molecular pathology, diagnostic tests which are part of the standard of care (SOC) only cover a limited part of the spectrum of genomic changes, and often are performed in an iterative way. This occurs at the expense of valuable patient time, available tissue sample, and interferes with 'first time right' treatment decisions. Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) captures a near complete view of genomic characteristics of a tumour in a single test. Moreover, WGS facilitates faster implementation of new treatment relevant biomarkers. At present, WGS mainly has been applied in study settings, but its performance in a routine diagnostic setting remains to be evaluated. The WIDE study aims to investigate the feasibility and validity of WGS-based diagnostics in clinical practice. METHODS: 1200 consecutive patients in a single comprehensive cancer centre with (suspicion of) a metastasized solid tumour will be enrolled with the intention to analyse tumour tissue with WGS, in parallel to SOC diagnostics. Primary endpoints are (1) feasibility of implementation of WGS-based diagnostics into routine clinical care and (2) clinical validation of WGS by comparing identification of treatment-relevant variants between WGS and SOC molecular diagnostics. Secondary endpoints entail (1) added clinical value in terms of additional treatment options and (2) cost-effectiveness of WGS compared to SOC diagnostics through a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) analysis. Furthermore, the (3) perceived impact of WGS-based diagnostics on clinical decision making will be evaluated through questionnaires. The number of patients included in (experimental) therapies initiated based on SOC or WGS diagnostics will be reported with at least 3 months follow-up. The clinical efficacy is beyond the scope of WIDE. Key performance indicators will be evaluated after every 200 patients enrolled, and procedures optimized accordingly, to continuously improve the diagnostic performance of WGS in a routine clinical setting. DISCUSSION: WIDE will yield the optimal conditions under which WGS can be implemented in a routine molecular diagnostics setting and establish the position of WGS compared to SOC diagnostics in routine clinical care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of using the heat and moisture exchangers compared with alternative stoma covers in laryngectomy rehabilitation: US perspective.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) vs alternative stoma covers (ASCs) following laryngectomy in the United States. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis were conducted including uncertainty analyses using real-world survey data with pulmonary events and productivity loss. RESULTS: HME use was more effective and less costly compared with ASCs. Quality-adjusted life years were slightly higher for HME-users. Total costs per patient (lifetime) were $59 362 (HME) and $102 416 (ASC). Pulmonary events and productivity loss occurred more frequently in the ASC-users. Annual budget savings were up to $40 183 593. Costs per pulmonary event averted were $3770. CONCLUSIONS: HME utilization in laryngectomy patients was cost-effective. Reimbursement of HME devices is thus recommended. Utilities may be underestimated due to the generic utility instrument used and sample size. Therefore, we recommend development of a disease-specific utility tool to incorporate in future analyses.