Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing as a Biomarker Testing Approach in Oncology and Policy Implications: A Literature Review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: A key hurdle in broader next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing access in oncology is the ongoing debate on NGS's cost-effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of existing evidence of the costs of NGS as a biomarker testing strategy in oncology and developed policy suggestions. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies reporting cost comparisons and cost-effectiveness of NGS across oncology indications and geographies between 2017 and 2022, inclusive. Inclusion criteria were established based on indication and type of cost-effectiveness analysis provided. We validated analyses and policy recommendations with 5 payer/policy maker interviews in the United States, Europe, and United Kingdom. RESULTS: Of the 634 identified studies, 29 met inclusion criteria, spanning 12 countries and 6 indications. Cost comparisons of NGS were evaluated using 3 methodologies: (1) comparison of direct testing costs, (2) comparison of holistic testing costs, and (3) comparison of long-term patient outcomes and costs. Targeted panel testing (2-52 genes) was considered cost-effective when 4+ genes were assessed, and larger panels (hundreds of genes) were generally not cost-effective. Holistic analysis demonstrated that NGS reduces turnaround time, healthcare staff requirements, number of hospital visits, and hospital costs. Finally, studies evaluating NGS testing including the cost of targeted therapies generally found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be above common thresholds but highlighted valuable patient benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature supports NGS's cost-effectiveness as an oncology biomarker testing strategy under specific conditions. These findings underscore the need to develop policies to support holistic assessment of NGS to ensure appropriate reimbursement and access.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 63 citations exist upstream.