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 five payer/policymaker interviews in the United States, Europe, and United Kingdom.
Results: Of the 634 identified studies, 29 met inclusion criteria, spanning 12 countries and six indications. Cost comparisons of NGS were evaluated using three 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 (ICER) 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.
Keywords: Next-generation sequencing; biomarkers; cost-effectiveness; oncology; systematic review.
Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.