It is currently unclear if next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies can be implemented in the diagnosis setting at an affordable cost. The aim of this study was to measure the total cost of performing NGS in clinical practice in France, in both germline and somatic cancer genetics.The study was performed on 15 French representative cancer molecular genetics laboratories performing NGS panels' tests. The production cost was estimated using a micro-costing method with resources consumed collected in situ in each laboratory from a healthcare provider perspective. In addition, we used a top-down methodology for specific post-sequencing steps including bioinformatics, technical validation, and biological validation. Additional non-specific costs were also included. Costs were detailed per step of the process (from the pre-analytical phase to delivery of results), and per cost driver (consumables, staff, equipment, maintenance, overheads). Sensitivity analyses were performed.The mean total cost of NGS for targeted gene panels was estimated to 607€ (±207) in somatic genetics and 550€ (±140) in germline oncogenetic analysis. Consumables were the highest cost driver of the sequencing process. The sensitivity analysis showed that a 25% reduction of consumables resulted in a 15% decrease in total NGS cost in somatic genetics, and 13% in germline analysis. Additional costs accounted for 30-32% of the total NGS costs.Beyond cost assessment considerations, the diffusion of NGS technologies will raise questions about their efficiency when compared to more targeted approaches, and their added value in a context of routine diagnosis.

BackgroundAlthough the management of sarcoma is improving, non adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) remains high, mainly because of the low incidence of the disease and the variety of histological subtypes. Since little is known about the health economics of sarcoma, we undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis (within the CONnective TIssue CAncer NETwork, CONTICANET) comparing costs and outcomes when clinicians adhered to CPGs and when they did not.MethodsPatients studied had a histological diagnosis of sarcoma, were older than 15 years, and had been treated in the Rhône-Alpes region of France (in 2005/2006) or in the Veneto region of Italy (in 2007). Data collected retrospectively for the three years after diagnosis were used to determine relapse free survival and health costs (adopting the hospital's perspective and a microcosting approach). All costs were expressed in euros (€) at their 2009 value. A 4% annual discount rate was applied to both costs and effects. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as cost per relapse-free year gained when management was compliant with CPGs compared with when it was not. To capture uncertainty surrounding ICER, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed based on a non-parametric bootstrap method.ResultsA total of 219 patients were included in the study. Compliance with CPGs was observed for 118 patients (54%). Average total costs reached 23,571 euros when treatment was in accordance with CPGs and 27,313 euros when it was not. In relation to relapse-free survival, compliance with CPGs strictly dominates non compliance, i.e. it is both less costly and more effective. Taking uncertainty into account, the probability that compliance with CPGs still strictly dominates was 75%.ConclusionsOur findings should encourage physicians to increase their compliance with CPGs and healthcare administrators to invest in the implementation of CPGs in the management of sarcoma.

BackgroundIn France, 2–15% of the population is affected annually by influenza, which causes significant socioeconomic disruption. Nevertheless, despite its importance for policy makers, few published studies have evaluated the impact of influenza B. Therefore, we assessed the costs associated with influenza B during 2010–2011 in France.MethodsCases of lab-confirmed influenza B were analyzed as part of the Influenza B in General Practice Study. Cost calculations were based on micro-costing methods according to the French Health Insurance (FHI) perspective (in Euros, 2011). Costs were compared between age groups using the Kruskal–Wallis test, and when significant, by multiple comparisons based on rank. Moreover, uncertainties were assessed using one-way sensitivity and probabilistic analyses. Overall economic burden was estimated by multiplying cost per patient, flu attack rate, and the French population.ResultsA total of 201 patients were included in the study. We found that the mean cost associated with Influenza B was 72€ (SD: 205) per patient: 70€ (SD: 262) for younger children, 50€ (SD: 195) for older children, 126€ (SD: 180) for adults, and 42€ (SD: 18) for elderly. Thus, we observed significantly different costs between the distinct age groups (p<0.0001). Finally, the economic burden of influenza B for the FHI was estimated to be 145 million Euros (95% CI: 88–201).ConclusionsOur findings highlight the important impact of influenza B and encourage further investigation on policy regarding vaccination strategies in France.