Cost-Effectiveness of Parallel Versus Sequential Testing of Genetic Aberrations for Stage IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Netherlands

Abstract

PURPOSE A large number of targeted treatment options for stage IV nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer with specific genetic aberrations in tumor DNA is available. It is therefore important to optimize diagnostic testing strategies, such that patients receive adequate personalized treatment that improves survival and quality of life. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy (including diagnostic costs, turnaround time (TAT), unsuccessful tests, percentages of correct findings, therapeutic costs, and therapeutic effectiveness) of parallel next generation sequencing (NGS)–based versus sequential single-gene–based testing strategies routinely used in patients with metastasized non–small-cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. METHODS A diagnostic microsimulation model was developed to simulate 100,000 patients with prevalence of genetic aberrations, extracted from real-world data from the Dutch Pathology Registry. These simulated patients were modeled to undergo different testing strategies composed of multiple tests with different test characteristics including single-gene and panel tests, test accuracy, the probability of an unsuccessful test, and TAT. Diagnostic outcomes were linked to a previously developed treatment model, to predict average long-term survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of parallel versus sequential testing. RESULTS NGS-based parallel testing for all actionable genetic aberrations is on average €266 cheaper than single-gene–based sequential testing, and detects additional relevant targetable genetic aberrations in 20.5% of the cases, given a TAT of maximally 2 weeks. Therapeutic costs increased by €8,358, and 0.12 QALYs were gained, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €69,614/QALY for parallel versus sequential testing. CONCLUSION NGS-based parallel testing is diagnostically superior over single-gene–based sequential testing, as it is cheaper and more effective than sequential testing. Parallel testing remains cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 69,614 €/QALY upon inclusion of therapeutic costs and long-term outcomes.

Usefulness and real-world outcomes of next generation sequencing testing in patients with cancer: an observational study on the impact of selection based on clinical judgement

“…NGS use, while logically focusing on gene alterations, has not taken into account the impact of clinical characteristics such as the general health of patients on the test-associated outcomes. Similarly, a benefit of NGS has been evaluated for cost-effectiveness when compared with single-gene testing, 43 but an NGS-derived survival improvement has not been clearly addressed. Finally, the design of NGS clinical trials or NGS real-world studies reflect the difficulties that have been described previously in reliably evaluating new diagnostic tools.…”

Interpreting and integrating genomic tests results in clinical cancer care: Overview and practical guidance

“…Ultimately, there is a tipping point in different cancer types at which the number of biomarkers per patient and the number of patients to be tested favors NGS over routine pathology testing, with NGS delivering more efficient use of tissue, lower costs, and faster turnaround times. This tipping point has already been reached for lung cancer, in which NGS has clear benefits over routine pathology testing, is close to this point for colorectal cancer, and will be reached soon for several other cancer types as more biomarker‐directed therapies are approved 42–44 …”

Non-small-cell lung cancer: how to manage BRAF-mutated disease

“…Additionally, NGS is more efficient in tissue optimization, with favourable cost-effectiveness and a median turnaround time shorter than the sequential approach. 19 – 21 …”