Can polygenic risk scores contribute to cost-effective cancer screening? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Polygenic risk influences susceptibility to cancer. We assessed whether polygenic risk scores could be used in conjunction with other predictors of future disease status in cost-effective risk-stratified screening for cancer. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of papers that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of screening interventions informed by polygenic risk scores compared with more conventional screening modalities. We included papers reporting cost-effectiveness outcomes with no restriction on type of cancer or form of polygenic risk modeled. We evaluated studies using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included in the review, which investigated 3 cancers: prostate (n = 5), colorectal (n = 3), and breast (n = 2). Of the 10 papers, 9 scored highly (score >75 on a 0-100 scale) when assessed using the quality checklist. Of the 10 studies, 8 concluded that polygenic risk-informed cancer screening was likely to be more cost-effective than alternatives. CONCLUSION: Despite the positive conclusions of the included studies, it is unclear if polygenic risk stratification will contribute to cost-effective cancer screening given the absence of robust evidence on the costs of polygenic risk stratification, the effects of differential ancestry, potential downstream economic sequalae, and how large volumes of polygenic risk data would be collected and used.

The complete costs of genome sequencing: a microcosting study in cancer and rare diseases from a single center in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: The translation of genome sequencing into routine health care has been slow, partly because of concerns about affordability. The aspirational cost of sequencing a genome is $1000, but there is little evidence to support this estimate. We estimate the cost of using genome sequencing in routine clinical care in patients with cancer or rare diseases. METHODS: We performed a microcosting study of Illumina-based genome sequencing in a UK National Health Service laboratory processing 399 samples/year. Cost data were collected for all steps in the sequencing pathway, including bioinformatics analysis and reporting of results. Sensitivity analysis identified key cost drivers. RESULTS: Genome sequencing costs £6841 per cancer case (comprising matched tumor and germline samples) and £7050 per rare disease case (three samples). The consumables used during sequencing are the most expensive component of testing (68-72% of the total cost). Equipment costs are higher for rare disease cases, whereas consumable and staff costs are slightly higher for cancer cases. CONCLUSION: The cost of genome sequencing is underestimated if only sequencing costs are considered, and likely surpasses $1000/genome in a single laboratory. This aspirational sequencing cost will likely only be achieved if consumable costs are considerably reduced and sequencing is performed at scale.

Do health professionals value genomic testing? A discrete choice experiment in inherited cardiovascular disease.

Next generation sequencing (NGS) approaches are moving from research into clinical practice. However, the optimal NGS approach in well-defined adult-onset familial diseases, such as inherited cardiovascular disease, remains unclear. We aimed to determine which attributes encouraged or discouraged the uptake of genomic tests in this context, and whether this differed by test type. We conducted a web-based discrete choice experiment in health professionals in the UK who order NGS tests for inherited cardiovascular disease. Respondents completed 12 hypothetical choice tasks in which they selected a preferred test from four alternatives: whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, panel testing and genetic testing not indicated. Tests were specified in terms of five attributes: diagnostic yield, detection rate for variants of unknown significance, cost, quantity of counselling received and disclosure of secondary findings. Mixed logit regression analysis was used to analyse the choice data. We found that uptake of NGS increases if tests identify more pathogenic mutations, identify fewer variants of unknown significance, or cost less. Respondents were willing to pay £117 for every 1% increase in diagnostic yield. Considerable heterogeneity was observed around preferences for several test attributes. Overall, panel testing had the highest predicted uptake rate. Our results indicate that NGS tests are valued by health professionals for well-defined adult-onset familial diseases, however, these professionals have strong preferences for panel testing rather than whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing. This finding suggests that different uptake rates should be explicitly modelled when designing and evaluating future genomic testing services.

Are whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing approaches cost-effective? A systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the current health economic evidence for whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). METHODS: Relevant studies were identified in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit and University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases from January 2005 to July 2016. Publications were included in the review if they were economic evaluations, cost studies, or outcome studies. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. These publications investigated the use of WES and WGS in a variety of genetic conditions in clinical practice, the most common being neurological or neurodevelopmental disorders. Study sample size varied from a single child to 2,000 patients. Cost estimates for a single test ranged from $555 to $5,169 for WES and from $1,906 to $24,810 for WGS. Few cost analyses presented data transparently and many publications did not state which components were included in cost estimates. CONCLUSION: The current health economic evidence base to support the more widespread use of WES and WGS in clinical practice is very limited. Studies that carefully evaluate the costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of these tests are urgently needed to support their translation into clinical practice.

Using Genomic Information to Guide Ibrutinib Treatment Decisions in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Genomic tests may improve the stratification of patients to receive new therapies in several disease areas. However, the use of expensive targeted therapies can impact on the cost effectiveness of these tests. This study presents an economic evaluation of genomic testing in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in the context of the UK National Health Service. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses (using life-years and quality-adjusted life-years) were undertaken from a National Health Service and societal perspective. Five strategies were evaluated across several age groups using Markov modelling: three strategies that reflected varying current genetic testing practice and two configurations of genomic testing (including ibrutinib treatment). RESULTS: Genomic testing strategies yielded the most life-years/quality-adjusted life-years per patient, but were not cost effective compared with a threshold of £30,000 per life-year/quality-adjusted life-year gained. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that there was some uncertainty surrounding this result. A genomic testing strategy becomes the most cost-effective option if a higher end-of-life cost-effectiveness threshold of £50,000 is applied, if a societal costing perspective is considered in 25-year-old patients or if the cost of ibrutinib treatment falls. CONCLUSION: Stratifying patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia to targeted treatment using genomic testing improves health outcomes, but will likely only represent a cost-effective use of limited National Health Service resources if a higher cost-effectiveness threshold or societal costing perspective is applied, or if the price of ibrutinib treatment is reduced. This result may be broadly indicative of the likely cost effectiveness of other genomic tests that inform the stratification of patients to high cost-targeted therapies.

Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Single gene tests to predict whether cancers respond to specific targeted therapies are performed increasingly often. Advances in sequencing technology, collectively referred to as next generation sequencing (NGS), mean the entire cancer genome or parts of it can now be sequenced at speed with increased depth and sensitivity. However, translation of NGS into routine cancer care has been slow. Healthcare stakeholders are unclear about the clinical utility of NGS and are concerned it could be an expensive addition to cancer diagnostics, rather than an affordable alternative to single gene testing. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We validated a 46-gene hotspot cancer panel assay allowing multiple gene testing from small diagnostic biopsies. From 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, solid tumour samples (including non-small-cell lung carcinoma [NSCLC], colorectal carcinoma, and melanoma) were sequenced in the context of the UK National Health Service from 351 consecutively submitted prospective cases for which treating clinicians thought the patient had potential to benefit from more extensive genetic analysis. Following histological assessment, tumour-rich regions of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections underwent macrodissection, DNA extraction, NGS, and analysis using a pipeline centred on Torrent Suite software. With a median turnaround time of seven working days, an integrated clinical report was produced indicating the variants detected, including those with potential diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, or clinical trial entry implications. Accompanying phenotypic data were collected, and a detailed cost analysis of the panel compared with single gene testing was undertaken to assess affordability for routine patient care. Panel sequencing was successful for 97% (342/351) of tumour samples in the prospective cohort and showed 100% concordance with known mutations (detected using cobas assays). At least one mutation was identified in 87% (296/342) of tumours. A locally actionable mutation (i.e., available targeted treatment or clinical trial) was identified in 122/351 patients (35%). Forty patients received targeted treatment, in 22/40 (55%) cases solely due to use of the panel. Examination of published data on the potential efficacy of targeted therapies showed theoretically actionable mutations (i.e., mutations for which targeted treatment was potentially appropriate) in 66% (71/107) and 39% (41/105) of melanoma and NSCLC patients, respectively. At a cost of £339 (US$449) per patient, the panel was less expensive locally than performing more than two or three single gene tests. Study limitations include the use of FFPE samples, which do not always provide high-quality DNA, and the use of "real world" data: submission of cases for sequencing did not always follow clinical guidelines, meaning that when mutations were detected, patients were not always eligible for targeted treatments on clinical grounds. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that more extensive tumour sequencing can identify mutations that could improve clinical decision-making in routine cancer care, potentially improving patient outcomes, at an affordable level for healthcare providers.