Display options
Share it on

Ecancermedicalscience. 2016 Oct 28;10:684. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2016.684. eCollection 2016.

Next-generation sequencing in NSCLC and melanoma patients: a cost and budget impact analysis.

Ecancermedicalscience

Rosa A van Amerongen, Valesca P Retèl, Veerle Mh Coupé, Petra M Nederlof, Maartje J Vogel, Wim H van Harten

Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  2. Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands; School of Governance and Management, University of Twente, MB-HTSR, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
  3. Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

PMID: 27899957 PMCID: PMC5102690 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2016.684

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has reached the molecular diagnostic laboratories. Although the NGS technology aims to improve the effectiveness of therapies by selecting the most promising therapy, concerns are that NGS testing is expensive and that the 'benefits' are not yet in relation to these costs. In this study, we give an estimation of the costs and an institutional and national budget impact of various types of NGS tests in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma patients within The Netherlands. First, an activity-based costing (ABC) analysis has been conducted on the costs of two examples of NGS panels (small- and medium-targeted gene panel (TGP)) based on data of The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). Second, we performed a budget impact analysis (BIA) to estimate the current (2015) and future (2020) budget impact of NGS on molecular diagnostics for NSCLC and melanoma patients in The Netherlands. Literature, expert opinions, and a data set of patients within the NKI (

Keywords: NSCLC; Next-generation sequencing; budget impact; melanoma; personalised medicine; targeted therapy; test costs

References

  1. Value Health. 2014 Jan-Feb;17(1):5-14 - PubMed
  2. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015 Sep;41(8):660-70 - PubMed
  3. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 15;10(6):e0129280 - PubMed
  4. Mol Diagn Ther. 2015 Jun;19(3):169-77 - PubMed
  5. Respirology. 2015 Apr;20(3):370-8 - PubMed
  6. Mol Cancer Res. 2010 Sep;8(9):1175-87 - PubMed
  7. J Med Econ. 2014 Aug;17(8):538-46 - PubMed
  8. Oncologist. 2013;18(5):634-6 - PubMed
  9. J Mol Diagn. 2016 May;18(3):319-28 - PubMed
  10. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015 Sep;23(9):1142-50 - PubMed
  11. J Pers Med. 2015 Dec 10;5(4):470-86 - PubMed
  12. Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Nov;31(11):1023-31 - PubMed
  13. Lung Cancer. 2016 Jun 2;:null - PubMed
  14. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Oct 1;57(2):522-35 - PubMed
  15. JAMA. 2014 May 21;311(19):1998-2006 - PubMed
  16. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Mar;93(3):252-9 - PubMed
  17. BMC Cancer. 2016 Feb 06;16:66 - PubMed
  18. Cancer. 2015 Feb 15;121(4):631-9 - PubMed

Publication Types