A time-and-motion approach to micro-costing of high-throughput genomic assays

[Cost of high-throughput sequencing (NGS) technologies: Literature review and insights]

Although high-throughput sequencing technologies (Next-Generation Sequencing [NGS]) are revolutionizing medicine, the estimation of their production cost for pricing/tariffication by health systems raises methodological questions. The objective of this review of cost studies of high-throughput sequencing techniques is to draw lessons for producing robust cost estimates of these techniques. We analyzed, using an eleven item analysis framework, micro-costing studies of high-throughput sequencing technologies (n=17), including two studies conducted in the French context. The factors of variability between the studies that we identified were temporality (early evaluation of the innovation vs. evaluation of a mature technology), the choice of cost evaluation method (scope, micro- vs. gross-costing technique), the choice of production steps observed and the transposability of these studies. The lessons we have learned are that it is necessary to have a comprehensive vision of the sequencing production process by integrating all the steps from the collection of the biological sample to the delivery of the result to the clinician. It is also important to distinguish between what refers to the local context and what refers to the general context, by favouring the use of mixed methods to calculate costs. Finally, sensitivity analyses and periodic re-estimation of the costs of the techniques must be carried out in order to be able to revise the tariffs according to changes linked to the diffusion of the technology and to competition between reagent suppliers.

Costs of Next-Generation Sequencing Assays in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Micro-Costing Study

Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor genomes has changed and improved cancer treatment over the past few decades. It can inform clinicians on the optimal therapeutic approach in many of the solid and hematologic cancers, including non-small lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study aimed to determine the costs of NGS assays for NSCLC diagnostics. Methods: We performed a micro-costing study of four NGS assays (Trusight Tumor 170 Kit (Illumina), Oncomine Focus (Thermo Fisher), QIAseq Targeted DNA Custom Panel and QIASeq Targeted RNAscan Custom Panel (Qiagen), and KAPA HyperPlus/SeqCap EZ (Roche)) at the StemCore Laboratories, the Ottawa Hospital, Canada. We used a time-and-motion approach to measure personnel time and a pre-defined questionnaire to collect resource utilization. The unit costs were based on market prices. The cost data were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars. Results: Based on a case throughput of 500 cases per year, the per-sample cost for TruSight Tumor 170 Kit, QIASeq Targeted DNA Custom Panel and QIASeq Targeted RNAscan Custom Panel, Oncomine Focus, and HyperPlus/SeqCap EZ were CAD 1778, CAD 599, CAD 1100 and CAD 1270, respectively. The key cost drivers were library preparation (34–60%) and sequencing (31–51%), followed by data analysis (6–13%) and administrative support (2–7%). Conclusions: Trusight Tumor 170 Kit was the most expensive NGS assay for NSCLC diagnostics; however, an economic evaluation is required to identify the most cost-effective NGS assay. Our study results could help inform decisions to select a robust platform for NSCLC diagnostics from fine needle aspirates, and future economic evaluations of the NGS platforms to guide treatment selections for NSCLC patients.

Health economic evidence for the use of molecular biomarker tests in hematological malignancies: A systematic review

Objectives

Molecular biomarker tests can inform the clinical management of genomic heterogeneous hematological malignancies, yet their availability in routine care largely depends on the supporting health economic evidence. This study aims to systematically review the economic evidence for recent molecular biomarker tests in hematological malignancies.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in five electronic databases for studies published between January 2010 and October 2020. Publications were independently screened by two reviewers. Clinical study characteristics, economic methodology, and results were extracted, and reporting quality was assessed.

Results

Fourteen studies were identified, of which half (n = 7; 50%) were full economic evaluations examining both health and economic outcomes. Studies were predominantly conducted in a first‐line treatment setting (n = 7; 50%) and adopted a non‐lifetime time horizon to measure health outcomes and costs (n = 7; 50%). Five studies reported that companion diagnostics for associated therapies were likely cost‐effective for acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Four studies suggested molecular biomarker tests for treatment monitoring in chronic myeloid leukemia were likely cost‐saving.

Conclusions

Although there is initial confirmation of the promising health economic results, the present research for molecular biomarker tests in hematological malignancies is sparse with many applications of technological advances yet to be evaluated.

Cost-Effectiveness of Molecularly Guided Treatment in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) in Patients under 60

Background: Classifying diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) into cell-of-origin (COO) subtypes could allow for personalized cancer control. Evidence suggests that subtype-guided treatment may be beneficial in the activated B-cell (ABC) subtype of DLBCL, among patients under the age of 60. Methods: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of age- and subtype-specific treatment guided by gene expression profiling (GEP). A probabilistic Markov model examined costs and quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALY) accrued to patients under GEP-classified COO treatment over a 10-year time horizon. The model was calibrated to evaluate the adoption of ibrutinib as a first line treatment among patients under 60 years with ABC subtype DLBCL. The primary data source for efficacy was derived from published estimates of the PHOENIX trial. These inputs were supplemented with patient-level, real-world data from BC Cancer, which provides comprehensive cancer services to the population of British Columbia. Results: We found the cost-effectiveness of GEP-guided treatment vs. standard care was $77,806 per QALY (24.3% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY; 53.7% probability at a WTP of $100,000/QALY) for first-line treatment. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions around decision-makers’ WTP and the cost of the assay. Conclusions: We encourage further clinical trials to reduce uncertainty around the implementation of GEP-classified COO personalized treatment in this patient population.

Estimating the costs of genomic sequencing in cancer control

BACKGROUND

Despite the rapid uptake of genomic technologies within cancer care, few studies provide detailed information on the costs of sequencing across different applications. The objective of the study was to examine and categorise the complete costs involved in genomic sequencing for a range of applications within cancer settings.

METHODS

We performed a cost-analysis using gross and micro-costing approaches for genomic sequencing performed during 2017/2018 across different settings in Brisbane, Australia. Sequencing was undertaken for patients with lung, breast, oesophageal cancers, melanoma or mesothelioma. Aggregated resource data were captured for a total of 1433 patients and point estimates of per patient costs were generated. Deterministic sensitivity analyses addressed the uncertainty in the estimates. Estimated costs to the public health system for resources were categorised into seven distinct activities in the sequencing process: sampling, extraction, library preparation, sequencing, analysis, data storage and clinical reporting. Costs were also aggregated according to labour, consumables, testing, equipment and 'other' categories.

RESULTS

The per person costs were AU$347-429 (2018 US$240-297) for targeted panels, AU$871-$2788 (2018 US$604-1932) for exome sequencing, and AU$2895-4830 (2018 US$2006-3347) for whole genome sequencing. Cost proportions were highest for library preparation/sequencing materials (average 76.8% of total costs), sample extraction (8.1%), data analysis (9.2%) and data storage (2.6%). Capital costs for the sequencers were an additional AU$34-197 (2018 US$24-67) per person.

CONCLUSIONS

Total costs were most sensitive to consumables and sequencing activities driven by commercial prices. Per person sequencing costs for cancer are high when tumour/blood pairs require testing. Using the natural steps involved in sequencing and categorising resources accordingly, future evaluations of costs or cost-effectiveness of clinical genomics across cancer projects could be more standardised and facilitate easier comparison of cost drivers.

Operational models and criteria for incorporating microbial whole genome sequencing in hospital microbiology - A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Microbial whole genome sequencing (WGS) has many advantages over standard microbiological methods. However, it is not yet widely implemented in routine hospital diagnostics due to notable challenges.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to extract managerial, financial and clinical criteria supporting the decision to implement WGS in routine diagnostic microbiology, across different operational models of implementation in the hospital setting.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of literature identified through PubMed and Web of Science. English literature studies discussing the applications of microbial WGS without limitation on publication date were eligible. A narrative approach for categorization and synthesis of the sources identified was adopted.

RESULTS

A total of 98 sources were included. Four main alternative operational models for incorporating WGS in clinical microbiology laboratories were identified: full in-house sequencing and analysis, full outsourcing of sequencing and analysis and two hybrid models combining in-house/outsourcing of the sequencing and analysis components. Six main criteria (and multiple related sub-criteria) for WGS implementation emerged from our review and included cost (e.g. the availability of resources for capital and operational investment); manpower (e.g. the ability to provide training programmes or recruit trained personnel), laboratory infrastructure (e.g. the availability of supplies and consumables or sequencing platforms), bioinformatics requirements (e.g. the availability of valid analysis tools); computational infrastructure (e.g. the availability of storage space or data safety arrangements); and quality control (e.g. the existence of standardized procedures).

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to incorporate WGS in routine diagnostics involves multiple, sometimes competing, criteria and sub-criteria. Mapping these criteria systematically is an essential stage in developing policies for adoption of this technology, e.g. using a multicriteria decision tool. Future research that will prioritize criteria and sub-criteria that were identified in our review in the context of operational models will inform decision-making at clinical and managerial levels with respect to effective implementation of WGS for routine use. Beyond WGS, similar decision-making challenges are expected with respect to future integration of clinical metagenomics.

A Micro-Costing Study of Screening for Lynch Syndrome-Associated Pathogenic Variants in an Unselected Endometrial Cancer Population: Cheap as NGS Chips?

Background: Lynch syndrome is the most common inherited cause of endometrial cancer. Identifying individuals affected by Lynch syndrome enables risk-reducing interventions including colorectal surveillance, and cascade testing of relatives.

Methods: We conducted a micro-costing study of screening all women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome using one of four diagnostic strategies combining tumor microsatellite instability testing (MSI), immunohistochemistry (IHC), and/or MLH1 methylation testing, and germline next generation sequencing (NGS). Resource use (consumables, capital equipment, and staff) was identified through direct observation and laboratory protocols. Published sources were used to identify unit costs to calculate a per-patient cost (£; 2017) of each testing strategy, assuming a National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Results: Tumor triage with MSI and reflex MLH1 methylation testing followed by germline NGS of women with likely Lynch syndrome was the cheapest strategy at £42.01 per case. Tumor triage with IHC and reflex MLH1 methylation testing of MLH1 protein-deficient cancers followed by NGS of women with likely Lynch syndrome cost £45.68. Tumor triage with MSI followed by NGS of all women found to have tumor microsatellite instability cost £78.95. Immediate germline NGS of all women with endometrial cancer cost £176.24. The cost of NGS was affected by the skills and time needed to interpret results (£44.55/patient).

Conclusion: This study identified the cost of reflex screening all women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome, which can be used in a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis to understand the added value of introducing reflex screening into clinical practice.

Value-based genomics

Advancements in next-generation sequencing have greatly enhanced the development of biomarker-driven cancer therapies. The affordability and availability of next-generation sequencers have allowed for the commercialization of next-generation sequencing platforms that have found widespread use for clinical-decision making and research purposes. Despite the greater availability of tumor molecular profiling by next-generation sequencing at our doorsteps, the achievement of value-based care, or improving patient outcomes while reducing overall costs or risks, in the era of precision oncology remains a looming challenge. In this review, we highlight available data through a pre-established and conceptualized framework for evaluating value-based medicine to assess the cost (efficiency), clinical benefit (effectiveness), and toxicity (safety) of genomic profiling in cancer care. We also provide perspectives on future directions of next-generation sequencing from targeted panels to whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing and describe potential strategies needed to attain value-based genomics.

Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes

INTRODUCTION

Reusable ureteroscope durability and need for repair are significant sources of expense and inefficiency for patients and urologists. Utilization of LithoVue™, a disposable flexible digital ureteroscope, may address some of these concerns. To identify its economic impact on clinical care, we performed a micro-cost comparison between flexible reusable fiberoptic ureteroscopes (URF-P6™) and LithoVue.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

For this prospective, single-center micro-costing study, all consecutive ureteroscopies performed during 1 week each in July and August 2016 utilized either URF-P6 or LithoVue ureteroscopes respectively. Workflow data were collected, including intraoperative events, postoperative reprocessing cycle timing, consumables usage, and ureteroscope cost data.

RESULTS

Intraoperative data analysis showed mean total operating room time for URF-P6 and LithoVue cases were 93.4 ± 32.3 and 73.6 ± 17.4 minutes, respectively (p = 0.093). Mean cost of operating room usage per case was calculated at $1618.72 ± 441.39 for URF-P6 and $1348.64 ± 237.40 for LithoVue based on institutional cost rates exclusive of disposables. Postoperative data analysis revealed costs of $107.27 for labor and consumables during reprocessing for URF-P6 cases. The costs of ureteroscope repair and capital acquisition for each URF-P6 case were $957.71 and $116.02, respectively. The total ureteroscope cost per case for URF-P6 and LithoVue were $2799.72 and $2852.29, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Micro-cost analysis revealed that the cost of LithoVue acquisition is higher per case compared to reusable fiberoptic ureteroscopes, but savings are realized in labor, consumables, and repair. When accounting for these factors, the total cost per case utilizing these two ureteroscopes were comparable.

The cost and cost trajectory of whole-genome analysis guiding treatment of patients with advanced cancers

Background

Limited data exist on the real‐world costs of applying whole‐genome analysis (WGA) in a clinical setting. We estimated the costs of applying WGA to guide treatments for patients with advanced cancers and characterized how costs evolve over time.

Methods

The setting is the British Columbia Cancer Agency Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) program in British Columbia, Canada. Cost data were obtained for patients who enrolled in the program from 2012 to 2015. We estimated mean WGA costs using bootstrapping. We applied time series analysis and produced 10‐year forecasts to determine when costs are expected to reach critical thresholds.

Results

The mean cost of WGA over the study period was CDN$34,886 per patient (95% CI: $34,051, $35,721). Over time, WGA costs decreased, driven by a reduction in costs of sequencing. Yet, costs of other components of WGA increased. Forecasting showed WGA costs may not reach critical thresholds within the next 10 years.

Conclusion

WGA costs decreased over the studied time horizon, but expenditures needed to realize WGA remain significant. Future research exploring costs and benefits of WGA‐guided cancer care are crucial to guide health policy.