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

The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Genomic medicine offers an unprecedented opportunity to improve cancer outcomes through prevention, early detection and precision therapy. Health policy makers worldwide are developing strategies to embed genomic medicine in routine cancer care. Successful translation of genomic medicine, however, remains slow. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise published evidence on the cost effectiveness of genomic medicine in cancer control. The insights could support efforts to accelerate access to cost-effective applications of human genomics.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024480842), and the review was conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. The search was run in four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and EconLit. Full economic evaluations of genomic technologies at any stage of cancer care, and published after 2018 and in English, were included for data extraction.

RESULTS

The review identified 137 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Most economic evaluations focused on the prevention and early detection stage (n = 44; 32%), the treatment stage (n = 36; 26%), and managing relapsed, refractory or progressive disease (n = 51, 37%). Convergent cost-effectiveness evidence was identified for the prevention and early detection of breast and ovarian cancer, and for colorectal and endometrial cancers. For cancer treatment, the use of genomic testing for guiding therapy was highly likely to be cost effective for breast and blood cancers. Studies reported that genomic medicine was cost effective for advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. There was insufficient or mixed evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of genomic medicine in the management of other cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review mapped out the cost-effectiveness evidence of genomic medicine across the cancer care continuum. Gaps in the literature mean that potentially cost-effective uses of genomic medicine in cancer control, for example rare cancers or cancers of unknown primary, may be being overlooked. Evidence on the value of information and budget impact are critical, and advancements in methods to include distributional effects, system capacity and consumer preferences will be valuable. Expanding the current cost-effectiveness evidence base is essential to enable the sustainable and equitable translation of genomic medicine.

Towards Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Predictive, Prognostic, and Serial Biomarker Tests in Oncology

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of biomarkers is challenging due to the indirect impact on health outcomes and the lack of sufficient fit-for-purpose data. Hands-on guidance is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed firstly to explore how CEAs in the context of three different types of biomarker applications have addressed these challenges, and secondly to develop recommendations for future CEAs.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed for three biomarker applications: predictive, prognostic, and serial testing, in advanced non-small cell lung cancer, early-stage colorectal cancer, and all-stage colorectal cancer, respectively. Information was extracted on the model assumptions and uncertainty, and the reported outcomes. An in-depth analysis of the literature was performed describing the impact of model assumptions in the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 43 CEAs were included (31 predictive, 6 prognostic, and 6 serial testing). Of these, 40 utilized different sources for test and treatment parameters, and three studies utilized a single source. Test performance was included in 78% of these studies utilizing different sources, but this parameter was differently expressed across biomarker applications. Sensitivity analyses for test performance was only performed in half of these studies. For the linkage of test results to treatments outcomes, a minority of the studies explored the impact of suboptimal adherence to test results, and/or explored potential differences in treatment effects for different biomarker subgroups. Intermediate outcomes were reported by 67% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified various approaches for dealing with challenges in CEAs of biomarker tests for three different biomarker applications. Recommendations on assumptions, handling uncertainty, and reported outcomes were drafted to enhance modeling practices for future biomarker cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation

PURPOSE

Targeted therapy and immunotherapy promise improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma, yet the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multigene panel sequencing compared with single-gene BRAF testing to guide therapeutic decisions is unknown.

METHODS

Our population-based quasi-experimental retrospective target trial emulation used comprehensive patient-level data for 364 British Columbia, Canada, adults with an advanced melanoma diagnosis receiving multigene panel sequencing or single-gene BRAF testing between September 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. We 1:1 matched multigene panel patients to controls using genetic algorithm-based matching. Outcomes included 3-year overall survival (OS) and health care costs (2021 Canadian dollars [CAD]) with incremental net monetary benefit for life-years gained (LYG). Outcomes were analyzed using inverse probability of censoring weighted linear regression for the intention-to-treat (ITT) effect. The per-protocol (PP) effect estimation also included stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. We then used Weibull regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

We matched 147 multigene panel patients to controls, achieving balance for all covariates. After matching, ITT incremental costs were $19,447 CAD (95% CI, -$18,516 to $76,006) and incremental LYG were 0.22 (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.49). We found uncertainty in differences on OS using Kaplan-Meier (P = .11) and Weibull regression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.51 to 1.03]) in the ITT. PP incremental costs were $36,367 CAD (95% CI, -$6,653 to $120,216]) and incremental LYG were 0.56 (95% CI, 0.39 to 1.24), with corresponding differences in OS using Kaplan-Meier (P = .02) and Weibull regression (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.87]). The probability of multigene panels being cost-effective at $100,000/LYG CAD was 55% for ITT and 65% for PP.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness of multigene panels was evenly poised at higher thresholds, even when accounting for treatment initiation. Health systems reimbursing multigene panels and expensive therapies may be confronted with a value tradeoff, in which there may be improved survival albeit with a modest change in cost-effectiveness.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of multi-gene panel sequencing to inform therapeutic decisions for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based study

Background

Multi-gene panel sequencing streamlines treatment selection for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Implementation continues to be uneven across jurisdictions, partly due to uncertain clinical and economic impacts. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, the public healthcare system reimbursed a multi-gene panel in September 2016. This study determined the population-level cost-effectiveness of publicly reimbursed multi-gene panel sequencing compared to single-gene testing for advanced NSCLC.

Methods

Our population-based retrospective study design used patient-level linked administrative health databases. We considered adult BC residents with a panel-eligible lung cancer diagnosis between September 2016 and December 2018. Using a machine learning approach, we conducted 1:1 genetic algorithm matching of recipients receiving multi-gene panel sequencing to controls receiving single-gene testing, maximising balance on observed demographic and clinical characteristics. Following matching, we estimated mean three-year survival time and costs (public healthcare payer perspective; 2021 CAD) and calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for life-years gained (LYG) at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds using inverse probability of censoring weighted linear regression and nonparametric bootstrapping.

Findings

We matched 858 panel-eligible advanced NSCLC patients to controls, achieving balance for the 16 included covariates. Average test turnaround times were 18.6 days for multi-gene panel sequencing and 7.0 days for single-gene testing. After matching, mean incremental costs were $3529 (95% CI: -$4268, $10,942) and mean incremental LYG were 0.08 (95% CI: -0.04, 0.18). Among the 1000 bootstrap samples, 14.5% had lower costs and increased survival and 78.6% had higher costs and increased survival. The INMB was $523 (95% CI: -$6256, $7023) at $50,000/LYG, with a 57.5% probability of being cost-effective, and $4575 (95% CI: -$5468, $14,064) at $100,000/LYG, with an 84.0% probability of being cost-effective.

Interpretation

Using population-based real-world data, we found a moderate to high probability that panel-based testing to inform targeted treatment for NSCLC would be cost-effective at higher thresholds.

Funding

This research was supported by Genome British Columbia/Genome Canada (G05CHS) and the Terry Fox Research Institute.

Evidence-based medicine and precision medicine: finding the balance between both

Editorial.

Factors for a broad technology assessment of comprehensive genomic profiling in advanced cancer, a systematic review

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) allows for the identification of many targets. Reimbursement decision-making is, however, challenging because besides the health benefits of on-label treatments and costs, other factors related to diagnostic and treatment pathways may also play a role. The aim of this study was to identify which other factors are relevant for the technology assessment of CGP and to summarize the available evidence for these factors. After a scoping search and two expert sessions, five factors were identified: feasibility, test journey, wider implications of diagnostic results, organisation of laboratories, and "scientific spillover". Subsequently, a systematic search identified 83 studies collecting mainly evidence for the factors "test journey" and "wider implications of diagnostic results". Its nature was, however, of limited value for decision-making. We recommend the use of comparative strategies, uniformity in outcome definitions, and the inclusion of a comprehensive set of factors in future evidence generation.

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing as a Biomarker Testing Approach in Oncology and Policy Implications: A Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

A key hurdle in broader next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing access in oncology is the ongoing debate on NGS's cost-effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of existing evidence of the costs of NGS as a biomarker testing strategy in oncology and developed policy suggestions.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for studies reporting cost comparisons and cost-effectiveness of NGS across oncology indications and geographies between 2017 and 2022, inclusive. Inclusion criteria were established based on indication and type of cost-effectiveness analysis provided. We validated analyses and policy recommendations with 5 payer/policy maker interviews in the United States, Europe, and United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Of the 634 identified studies, 29 met inclusion criteria, spanning 12 countries and 6 indications. Cost comparisons of NGS were evaluated using 3 methodologies: (1) comparison of direct testing costs, (2) comparison of holistic testing costs, and (3) comparison of long-term patient outcomes and costs. Targeted panel testing (2-52 genes) was considered cost-effective when 4+ genes were assessed, and larger panels (hundreds of genes) were generally not cost-effective. Holistic analysis demonstrated that NGS reduces turnaround time, healthcare staff requirements, number of hospital visits, and hospital costs. Finally, studies evaluating NGS testing including the cost of targeted therapies generally found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be above common thresholds but highlighted valuable patient benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature supports NGS's cost-effectiveness as an oncology biomarker testing strategy under specific conditions. These findings underscore the need to develop policies to support holistic assessment of NGS to ensure appropriate reimbursement and access.

EBCC-14 manifesto: Addressing disparities in access to innovation for patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe

The European Breast Cancer Council (EBCC) traditionally identifies controversies or major deficiencies in the management of patients with breast cancer and selects a multidisciplinary expert team to collaborate in setting crucial principles and recommendations to improve breast cancer care. The 2024 EBCC manifesto focuses on disparities in the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer. There are several reasons for existing disparities both between and within countries. Our recommendations aim to address the stigma of metastatic disease, which has led to significant disparities in access to innovative care regardless of the gross national income of a country. These recommendations are for different stakeholders to promote the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe and worldwide.

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Alters Clinical Diagnoses in a Significant Fraction of Tumors Suspicious of Sarcoma

PURPOSE

Tumor classification is a key component in personalized cancer care. For soft-tissue and bone tumors, this classification is currently based primarily on morphology assessment and IHC staining. However, these standard-of-care methods can pose challenges for pathologists. We therefore assessed how whole-genome and whole-transcriptome sequencing (WGTS) impacted tumor classification and clinical management when interpreted together with histomorphology.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We prospectively evaluated WGTS in routine diagnostics of 200 soft-tissue and bone tumors suspicious for malignancy, including DNA and RNA isolation from the tumor, and DNA isolation from a peripheral blood sample or any non-tumor tissue.

RESULTS

On the basis of specific genomic alterations or absence of presumed findings, WGTS resulted in reclassification of 7% (13/197) of the histopathologic diagnoses. Four cases were downgraded from low-grade sarcomas to benign lesions, and two cases were reclassified as metastatic malignant melanomas. Fusion genes associated with specific tumor entities were found in 30 samples. For malignant soft-tissue and bone tumors, we identified treatment relevant variants in 15% of cases. Germline pathogenic variants associated with a hereditary cancer syndrome were found in 22 participants (11%).

CONCLUSIONS

WGTS provides an important dimension of data that aids in the classification of soft-tissue and bone tumors, correcting a significant fraction of clinical diagnoses, and identifies molecular targets relevant for precision medicine. However, genetic findings need to be evaluated in their morphopathologic context, just as germline findings need to be evaluated in the context of patient phenotype and family history.

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.

Sarcoma care in the era of precision medicine

Sarcoma subtype classification is currently mainly based upon histopathological morphology. Molecular analyses have emerged as an efficient addition to the diagnostic workup and sarcoma care. Knowledge about the sarcoma genome increases, and genetic events that can either support a histopathological diagnosis or suggest a differential diagnosis are identified, as well as novel therapeutic targets. In this review, we present diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic molecular markers that are, or might soon be, used clinically. For sarcoma diagnostics, there are specific fusions highly supportive or pathognomonic for a diagnostic entity-for instance, SYT::SSX in synovial sarcoma. Complex karyotypes also give diagnostic information-for example, supporting dedifferentiation rather than low-grade central osteosarcoma or well-differentiated liposarcoma when detected in combination with MDM2/CDK4 amplification. Molecular treatment predictive sarcoma markers are available for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and locally aggressive benign mesenchymal tumors. The molecular prognostic markers for sarcomas in clinical practice are few. For solitary fibrous tumor, the type of NAB2::STAT6 fusion is associated with the outcome, and the KIT/PDGFRA pathogenic variant in GISTs can give prognostic information. With the exploding availability of sequencing technologies, it becomes increasingly important to understand the strengths and limitations of those methods and their context in sarcoma diagnostics. It is reasonable to believe that most sarcoma treatment centers will increase the use of massive-parallel sequencing soon. We conclude that the context in which the genetic findings are interpreted is of importance, and the interpretation of genomic findings requires considering tumor histomorphology.

How to create value with constrained budgets in oncological care? A narrative review

INTRODUCTION

As a result of an increasing focus on patient-centered care within oncology and more pressure on the sustainability of health-care systems, the discussion on what exactly constitutes value re-appears. Policymakers seek to improve patient values; however, funding all values is not sustainable.

AREAS COVERED

We collect available evidence from scientific literature and reflect on the concept of value, the possible incorporation of a wide spectrum of values in reimbursement decisions, and alternative strategies to increase value in oncological care.

EXPERT OPINION

We state that value holds many different aspects. For reimbursement decisions, we argue that it is simply not feasible to incorporate all patient values because of the need for efficient resource allocation. We argue that we should shift the value debate from the individual perspective of patients to creating value for the cancer population at large. The different strategies we address are as follows: (1) shared decision-making; (2) biomarkers and molecular diagnostics; (3) appropriate evaluation, payment and use of drugs; (4) supportive care; (5) cancer prevention and screening; (6) monitoring late effect; (7) concentration of care and oncological networking; and (8) management of comorbidities. Important preconditions to support these strategies are strategic planning, consistent cancer policies and data availability.

Liquid Biopsies in Lung Cancer

As lung cancer has the highest cancer-specific mortality rates worldwide, there is an urgent need for new therapeutic and diagnostic approaches to detect early-stage tumors and to monitor their response to the therapy. In addition to the well-established tissue biopsy analysis, liquid-biopsy-based assays may evolve as an important diagnostic tool. The analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is the most established method, followed by other methods such as the analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTCs), microRNAs (miRNAs), and extracellular vesicles (EVs). Both PCR- and NGS-based assays are used for the mutational assessment of lung cancer, including the most frequent driver mutations. However, ctDNA analysis might also play a role in monitoring the efficacy of immunotherapy and its recent accomplishments in the landscape of state-of-the-art lung cancer therapy. Despite the promising aspects of liquid-biopsy-based assays, there are some limitations regarding their sensitivity (risk of false-negative results) and specificity (interpretation of false-positive results). Hence, further studies are needed to evaluate the usefulness of liquid biopsies for lung cancer. Liquid-biopsy-based assays might be integrated into the diagnostic guidelines for lung cancer as a tool to complement conventional tissue sampling.

Ganzgenomsequenzierung - Kosten-Effektivität und Budget-Impact zukünftiger Entwicklungen mit Ganzgenomsequenzierung für Patienten mit Lungenkrebs

Die Genommedizin mit Ganzgenomsequenzierung (whole genome sequencing - WGS) gewinnt international immer mehr an Bedeutung. Gerade Patienten mit seltenen und onkologischen Erkrankungen könnten zukünftig davon profitieren, der Nachweis des klinischen Nutzens steht in vielen Bereichen noch aus. Simons et al. untersuchten die Kosteneffektivität und den Budget Impact des Einsatzes von genetischen Tests bei Patienten mit fortgeschrittenem und metastasiertem nicht-kleinzelligem Lungenkrebs mit einer Modellierung von Zukunftsszenarien.