Treatment Choices Based On Multiplatform Profiling Platform, Unlike Those With Sequencing Alone, Do Not Cause A Cost Explosion In Refractory Cancer Patients
OBJECTIVES: Molecular testing of cancers is quickly becoming standard of care using diverse approaches, either academic or commercial in origin. Some oncologists remain apprehensive about the clinical utility of molecular profiling, based on the degree to which information can be used in a treatment...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Value in health 2017-10, Vol.20 (9), p.A579 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | A579 |
container_title | Value in health |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Russell, KJ Janssens, J Dean, A Hernandez, A Voss, A |
description | OBJECTIVES: Molecular testing of cancers is quickly becoming standard of care using diverse approaches, either academic or commercial in origin. Some oncologists remain apprehensive about the clinical utility of molecular profiling, based on the degree to which information can be used in a treatment decision, and whether it would lead to selection of more expensive treatments that may not be accessible. The aim of this study is to examine the decision impact of a multi-platform tumor profiling service, Caris Molecular Intelligence (CMI), and evaluate CMI-guided treatment costs compared to prior and planned treatments in prospective and retrospective clinical studies. METHODS: In 5 physician-led clinical studies, the treatment decision prior to receipt of the CMI report was captured (n=137 patients). A systematic review of treatment data from 10 clinical studies of CMI (n=385 patients) allowed a comparison of planned versus actual (n=137) and prior versus actual (n=229) treatment costs. Costing information was taken from the British National Formulary (BNF) giving a treatment cost per cycle per patient. Decision impact (n=232) and treatment cost per cycle (n=131) were also compared with corresponding data from studies of next generation sequencing (NGS)-only approaches. RESULTS: Decision impact was changed in 88% of CMI-profiled cases compared to 29% of NGS-only approaches. The CMI-guided treatment cost per cycle was £995 in 385 treated patients. Planned treatment costs were comparable to actual treatment costs (£979 versus £945; p=0.7123) and prior treatment costs were also not significantly different to profiling-guided treatments (£892 versus £850; p=0.6319). NGS-only guided treatments cost £2,501 per cycle per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment costs guided by a multiplatform-profiling platform were comparable to planned and prior treatment and do not cause a cost explosion, as the majority of treatments used were conventional chemotherapies. NGS-only Approaches rely on more expensive targeted therapies and higher treatment cost per cycle per patient. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1026 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2113728863</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2113728863</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1676-5587bb27a644797c9519363ce9a5e083c72a1700b1dcad0b12c92017e2c713d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkd1OAjEQhTdGExF9Am8m8ZbF_rDb3UtEVBIUohAvm1K60nVpsS1G3sWHtRu5msnJlzMnc5LkGqM-Rji_rfv1t2j6BGHWR0XUSH6SdHBGBumAUXoad1QWKUU4O08uvK8RQjklWSf5XTglwlaZAKON1VJ5uBNerWFm4HnfBL1rRKis28Lc2Uo32nzA_Cj1YGka_algsbFewbsOG3hTX3tlZIsNG2tUD-4tvNjoLvaRGcLI-gDjn11jvbYGJgZeVeWEDNYdImSkcjAXQcdE_jI5q0Tj1dVxdpPlw3gxekqns8fJaDhNJc5ZnmZZwVYrwkQ-GLCSyTLDJc2pVKXIFCqoZERghtAKr6VYx0Fk2b5KEckwXRe0m9z8--6cjfF94LXdOxNPcoIxZaQochop-k9JZ713quI7p7fCHThGvK2B17ytgbfeHBW8rYH-AQkJfMU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2113728863</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treatment Choices Based On Multiplatform Profiling Platform, Unlike Those With Sequencing Alone, Do Not Cause A Cost Explosion In Refractory Cancer Patients</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Russell, KJ ; Janssens, J ; Dean, A ; Hernandez, A ; Voss, A</creator><creatorcontrib>Russell, KJ ; Janssens, J ; Dean, A ; Hernandez, A ; Voss, A</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVES: Molecular testing of cancers is quickly becoming standard of care using diverse approaches, either academic or commercial in origin. Some oncologists remain apprehensive about the clinical utility of molecular profiling, based on the degree to which information can be used in a treatment decision, and whether it would lead to selection of more expensive treatments that may not be accessible. The aim of this study is to examine the decision impact of a multi-platform tumor profiling service, Caris Molecular Intelligence (CMI), and evaluate CMI-guided treatment costs compared to prior and planned treatments in prospective and retrospective clinical studies. METHODS: In 5 physician-led clinical studies, the treatment decision prior to receipt of the CMI report was captured (n=137 patients). A systematic review of treatment data from 10 clinical studies of CMI (n=385 patients) allowed a comparison of planned versus actual (n=137) and prior versus actual (n=229) treatment costs. Costing information was taken from the British National Formulary (BNF) giving a treatment cost per cycle per patient. Decision impact (n=232) and treatment cost per cycle (n=131) were also compared with corresponding data from studies of next generation sequencing (NGS)-only approaches. RESULTS: Decision impact was changed in 88% of CMI-profiled cases compared to 29% of NGS-only approaches. The CMI-guided treatment cost per cycle was £995 in 385 treated patients. Planned treatment costs were comparable to actual treatment costs (£979 versus £945; p=0.7123) and prior treatment costs were also not significantly different to profiling-guided treatments (£892 versus £850; p=0.6319). NGS-only guided treatments cost £2,501 per cycle per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment costs guided by a multiplatform-profiling platform were comparable to planned and prior treatment and do not cause a cost explosion, as the majority of treatments used were conventional chemotherapies. NGS-only Approaches rely on more expensive targeted therapies and higher treatment cost per cycle per patient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1098-3015</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1524-4733</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1026</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lawrenceville: Elsevier Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Anxiety ; Cancer ; Costing ; Health care expenditures ; Intelligence ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical treatment ; Oncologists ; Patients ; Profiles ; Systematic review ; Treatment preferences</subject><ispartof>Value in health, 2017-10, Vol.20 (9), p.A579</ispartof><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Oct/Nov 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1676-5587bb27a644797c9519363ce9a5e083c72a1700b1dcad0b12c92017e2c713d83</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30999</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Russell, KJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janssens, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dean, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hernandez, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Voss, A</creatorcontrib><title>Treatment Choices Based On Multiplatform Profiling Platform, Unlike Those With Sequencing Alone, Do Not Cause A Cost Explosion In Refractory Cancer Patients</title><title>Value in health</title><description>OBJECTIVES: Molecular testing of cancers is quickly becoming standard of care using diverse approaches, either academic or commercial in origin. Some oncologists remain apprehensive about the clinical utility of molecular profiling, based on the degree to which information can be used in a treatment decision, and whether it would lead to selection of more expensive treatments that may not be accessible. The aim of this study is to examine the decision impact of a multi-platform tumor profiling service, Caris Molecular Intelligence (CMI), and evaluate CMI-guided treatment costs compared to prior and planned treatments in prospective and retrospective clinical studies. METHODS: In 5 physician-led clinical studies, the treatment decision prior to receipt of the CMI report was captured (n=137 patients). A systematic review of treatment data from 10 clinical studies of CMI (n=385 patients) allowed a comparison of planned versus actual (n=137) and prior versus actual (n=229) treatment costs. Costing information was taken from the British National Formulary (BNF) giving a treatment cost per cycle per patient. Decision impact (n=232) and treatment cost per cycle (n=131) were also compared with corresponding data from studies of next generation sequencing (NGS)-only approaches. RESULTS: Decision impact was changed in 88% of CMI-profiled cases compared to 29% of NGS-only approaches. The CMI-guided treatment cost per cycle was £995 in 385 treated patients. Planned treatment costs were comparable to actual treatment costs (£979 versus £945; p=0.7123) and prior treatment costs were also not significantly different to profiling-guided treatments (£892 versus £850; p=0.6319). NGS-only guided treatments cost £2,501 per cycle per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment costs guided by a multiplatform-profiling platform were comparable to planned and prior treatment and do not cause a cost explosion, as the majority of treatments used were conventional chemotherapies. NGS-only Approaches rely on more expensive targeted therapies and higher treatment cost per cycle per patient.</description><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Costing</subject><subject>Health care expenditures</subject><subject>Intelligence</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical treatment</subject><subject>Oncologists</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Profiles</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Treatment preferences</subject><issn>1098-3015</issn><issn>1524-4733</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNotkd1OAjEQhTdGExF9Am8m8ZbF_rDb3UtEVBIUohAvm1K60nVpsS1G3sWHtRu5msnJlzMnc5LkGqM-Rji_rfv1t2j6BGHWR0XUSH6SdHBGBumAUXoad1QWKUU4O08uvK8RQjklWSf5XTglwlaZAKON1VJ5uBNerWFm4HnfBL1rRKis28Lc2Uo32nzA_Cj1YGka_algsbFewbsOG3hTX3tlZIsNG2tUD-4tvNjoLvaRGcLI-gDjn11jvbYGJgZeVeWEDNYdImSkcjAXQcdE_jI5q0Tj1dVxdpPlw3gxekqns8fJaDhNJc5ZnmZZwVYrwkQ-GLCSyTLDJc2pVKXIFCqoZERghtAKr6VYx0Fk2b5KEckwXRe0m9z8--6cjfF94LXdOxNPcoIxZaQochop-k9JZ713quI7p7fCHThGvK2B17ytgbfeHBW8rYH-AQkJfMU</recordid><startdate>201710</startdate><enddate>201710</enddate><creator>Russell, KJ</creator><creator>Janssens, J</creator><creator>Dean, A</creator><creator>Hernandez, A</creator><creator>Voss, A</creator><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201710</creationdate><title>Treatment Choices Based On Multiplatform Profiling Platform, Unlike Those With Sequencing Alone, Do Not Cause A Cost Explosion In Refractory Cancer Patients</title><author>Russell, KJ ; Janssens, J ; Dean, A ; Hernandez, A ; Voss, A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1676-5587bb27a644797c9519363ce9a5e083c72a1700b1dcad0b12c92017e2c713d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Costing</topic><topic>Health care expenditures</topic><topic>Intelligence</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical treatment</topic><topic>Oncologists</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Profiles</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Treatment preferences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Russell, KJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janssens, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dean, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hernandez, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Voss, A</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Value in health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Russell, KJ</au><au>Janssens, J</au><au>Dean, A</au><au>Hernandez, A</au><au>Voss, A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treatment Choices Based On Multiplatform Profiling Platform, Unlike Those With Sequencing Alone, Do Not Cause A Cost Explosion In Refractory Cancer Patients</atitle><jtitle>Value in health</jtitle><date>2017-10</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>A579</spage><pages>A579-</pages><issn>1098-3015</issn><eissn>1524-4733</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVES: Molecular testing of cancers is quickly becoming standard of care using diverse approaches, either academic or commercial in origin. Some oncologists remain apprehensive about the clinical utility of molecular profiling, based on the degree to which information can be used in a treatment decision, and whether it would lead to selection of more expensive treatments that may not be accessible. The aim of this study is to examine the decision impact of a multi-platform tumor profiling service, Caris Molecular Intelligence (CMI), and evaluate CMI-guided treatment costs compared to prior and planned treatments in prospective and retrospective clinical studies. METHODS: In 5 physician-led clinical studies, the treatment decision prior to receipt of the CMI report was captured (n=137 patients). A systematic review of treatment data from 10 clinical studies of CMI (n=385 patients) allowed a comparison of planned versus actual (n=137) and prior versus actual (n=229) treatment costs. Costing information was taken from the British National Formulary (BNF) giving a treatment cost per cycle per patient. Decision impact (n=232) and treatment cost per cycle (n=131) were also compared with corresponding data from studies of next generation sequencing (NGS)-only approaches. RESULTS: Decision impact was changed in 88% of CMI-profiled cases compared to 29% of NGS-only approaches. The CMI-guided treatment cost per cycle was £995 in 385 treated patients. Planned treatment costs were comparable to actual treatment costs (£979 versus £945; p=0.7123) and prior treatment costs were also not significantly different to profiling-guided treatments (£892 versus £850; p=0.6319). NGS-only guided treatments cost £2,501 per cycle per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment costs guided by a multiplatform-profiling platform were comparable to planned and prior treatment and do not cause a cost explosion, as the majority of treatments used were conventional chemotherapies. NGS-only Approaches rely on more expensive targeted therapies and higher treatment cost per cycle per patient.</abstract><cop>Lawrenceville</cop><pub>Elsevier Science Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1026</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1098-3015 |
ispartof | Value in health, 2017-10, Vol.20 (9), p.A579 |
issn | 1098-3015 1524-4733 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2113728863 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Anxiety Cancer Costing Health care expenditures Intelligence Medical diagnosis Medical treatment Oncologists Patients Profiles Systematic review Treatment preferences |
title | Treatment Choices Based On Multiplatform Profiling Platform, Unlike Those With Sequencing Alone, Do Not Cause A Cost Explosion In Refractory Cancer Patients |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-31T01%3A06%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treatment%20Choices%20Based%20On%20Multiplatform%20Profiling%20Platform,%20Unlike%20Those%20With%20Sequencing%20Alone,%20Do%20Not%20Cause%20A%20Cost%20Explosion%20In%20Refractory%20Cancer%20Patients&rft.jtitle=Value%20in%20health&rft.au=Russell,%20KJ&rft.date=2017-10&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=A579&rft.pages=A579-&rft.issn=1098-3015&rft.eissn=1524-4733&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2113728863%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2113728863&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |