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

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

Cost-utility of an eHealth application 'Oncokompas' that supports cancer survivors in self-management: results of a randomised controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 231658.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)PURPOSE: The eHealth self-management application 'Oncokompas' was developed to support cancer survivors in monitoring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms, and obtaining personalized feedback and options for supportive care. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility of Oncokompas compared with care as usual (CAU) among cancer survivors. METHODS: Survivors were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. Direct (non-)medical, indirect non-medical costs, and HRQOL were measured at 3- and 6-month follow-up, using iMTA Medical Consumption and Productivity Costs and the EuroQol-5D questionnaires. Mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were compared between both groups. RESULTS: In total, 625 survivors were randomized into intervention (n = 320) or control group (n = 305). Base case analysis showed that incremental costs from a societal perspective were - €163 (95% CI, - 665 to 326), and incremental QALYs were 0.0017 (95% CI, - 0.0121 to 0.0155) in the intervention group compared with those in the control group. The probability that, compared with CAU, Oncokompas is more effective was 60%, less costly 73%, and both more effective and less costly 47%. Sensitivity analyses showed that incremental costs vary between - €40 and €69, and incremental QALYs vary between - 0.0023 and - 0.0057. CONCLUSION: Oncokompas is likely to be equally effective on utilities, and not more expensive than CAU, and will therefore contribute to sustainable cancer survivorship care in a (cost-)effective manner. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Oncokompas seems to improve HRQOL and reduces the burden of several tumour-specific symptoms, while costs from a societal perspective are similar to CAU