Cost‑effectiveness of precision cancer medicine‑current challenges in the use of next generation sequencing for comprehensive tumour genomic profiling and the role of clinical utility frameworks (Review)

Christofyllakis,Konstantinos; Bittenbring,Joerg Thomas; Thurner,Lorenz; Ahlgrimm,Manfred; Stilgenbauer,Stephan; Bewarder,Moritz; Kaddu‑Mulindwa,Dominic

doi:10.3892/mco.2021.2453

Cost‑effectiveness of precision cancer medicine‑current challenges in the use of next generation sequencing for comprehensive tumour genomic profiling and the role of clinical utility frameworks (Review)

Authors:
- Konstantinos Christofyllakis
- Joerg Thomas Bittenbring
- Lorenz Thurner
- Manfred Ahlgrimm
- Stephan Stilgenbauer
- Moritz Bewarder
- Dominic Kaddu‑Mulindwa
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Hematology, Oncology, Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Saarland University Medical Center, D‑66421 Homburg, Germany
Published online on: November 25, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2453
Article Number: 21

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Precision cancer medicine (PCM) is an emerging paradigm in oncology, which includes tumour comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to enable molecularly guided therapy. However, cost‑effectiveness analyses of PCM are faced with several challenges and, thus, its cost‑effectiveness remains unclear. Early trials using only molecularly guided therapy were faced with the challenge of providing adequate measures of outcome, which probably explains the modest treatment benefits demonstrated. Endpoints like the progression‑free survival (PFS)2/PFS1 ratio may assist in overcoming this issue. Moreover, specific tumour subtypes appear to benefit more from PCM. Costs associated with next‑generation sequencing (NGS) for CGP are decreasing, but targeted therapy itself represents a major cost driver. CGP not only enables prediction of response to treatment, but also resistance, and could thus prevent administration of unnecessary (and costly) therapies. In clinical practice, the presence of clinical frameworks, such as the Recommendations for the Use of NGS for Patients with Metastatic Cancers from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group, and the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets, are essential in appropriately identifying situations where PCM is clinically meaningful, thereby improving its cost‑effectiveness.

View Figures

View References

1	Jameson JL and Longo DL: Precision medicine-personalized, problematic, and promising. N Engl J Med. 372:2229–2234. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Moscow JA, Fojo T and Schilsky RL: The evidence framework for precision cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 15:183–192. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Tannock IF and Hickman JA: Limits to personalized cancer medicine. N Engl J Med. 375:1289–1294. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Le Tourneau C, Delord JP, Gonçalves A, Gavoille C, Dubot C, Isambert N, Campone M, Trédan O, Massiani MA, Mauborgne C, et al: Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): A multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 16:1324–1334. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Trédan O, Wang Q, Pissaloux D, Cassier P, de la Fouchardière A, Fayette J, Desseigne F, Ray-Coquard I, de la Fouchardière C, Frappaz D, et al: Molecular screening program to select molecular-based recommended therapies for metastatic cancer patients: Analysis from the ProfiLER trial. Ann Oncol. 30:757–765. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Massard C, Michiels S, Ferté C, Deley MC, Lacroix L, Hollebecque A, Verlingue L, Ileana E, Rosellini S, Ammari S, et al: High-throughput genomics and clinical outcome in hard-to-treat advanced cancers: Results of the MOSCATO 01 trial. Cancer Discov. 7:586–595. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Mock A, Heilig CE, Kreutzfeldt S, Huebschmann D, Heining C, Schröck E, Brors B, Stenzinger A, Jäger D, Schlenk R, et al: Community-driven development of a modified progression-free survival ratio for precision oncology. ESMO Open. 4(583)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Rodon J, Soria JC, Berger R, Miller WH, Rubin E, Kugel A, Tsimberidou A, Saintigny P, Ackerstein A, Braña I, et al: Genomic and transcriptomic profiling expands precision cancer medicine: The WINTHER trial. Nat Med. 25:751–758. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Huang M, Shen A, Ding J and Geng M: Molecularly targeted cancer therapy: Some lessons from the past decade. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 35:41–50. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Schmitt MW, Loeb LA and Salk JJ: The influence of subclonal resistance mutations on targeted cancer therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 13:335–347. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Pishvaian MJ, Blais EM, Brody JR, Lyons E, DeArbeloa P, Hendifar A, Mikhail S, Chung V, Sahai V, Sohal DP, et al: Overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving matched therapies following molecular profiling: A retrospective analysis of the know your tumor registry trial. Lancet Oncol. 21:508–518. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Verlingue L, Malka D, Allorant A, Massard C, Ferté C, Lacroix L, Rouleau E, Auger N, Ngo M, Nicotra C, et al: Precision medicine for patients with advanced biliary tract cancers: An effective strategy within the prospective MOSCATO-01 trial. Eur J Cancer. 87:122–130. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI): The cost of sequencing a human genome. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Sequencing-Human-Genome-cost. Accessed December 6, 2020.
14	Schwarze K, Buchanan J, Taylor JC and Wordsworth S: Are whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing approaches cost-effective? A systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 20:1122–1130. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Van Nimwegen KJM, Van Soest RA, Veltman JA, Nelen MR, Van Der Wilt GJ, Vissers LELM and Grutters JPC: Is the 1000 genome as near as we think? A cost analysis of next-generation sequencing. Clin Chem. 62:1458–1464. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Pagès A, Foulon S, Zou Z, Lacroix L, Lemare F, de Baère T, Massard C, Soria JC and Bonastre J: The cost of molecular-guided therapy in oncology: A prospective cost study alongside the MOSCATO trial. Genet Med. 19:683–690. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Morganti S, Tarantino P, Ferraro E, D'Amico P, Viale G, Trapani D, Duso BA and Curigliano G: Role of next-generation sequencing technologies in personalized medicine. In: P5 eHealth: An Agenda for the Health Technologies of the Future. Pravettoni G and Triberti S (eds). Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp125-154, 2020.
18	Phillips KA, Deverka PA, Marshall DA, Wordsworth S, Regier DA, Christensen KD and Buchanan J: Methodological issues in assessing the economic value of next-generation sequencing tests: Many challenges and not enough solutions. Value Health. 21:1033–1042. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Tan AC, Lai GGY, Tan GS, Poon SY, Doble B, Lim TH, Aung ZW, Takano A, Tan WL, Ang MK, et al: Utility of incorporating next-generation sequencing (NGS) in an Asian non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) population: Incremental yield of actionable alterations and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lung Cancer. 139:207–215. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Menke-Pluijmers MBE, Jager A, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Koppert LB, Obdeijn IM, van Deurzen CH, Collée JM, Seynaeve C and Hooning MJ: Substantial breast cancer risk reduction and potential survival benefit after bilateral mastectomy when compared with surveillance in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: A prospective analysis. Ann Oncol. 24:2029–2035. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Mosele F, Remon J, Mateo J, Westphalen CB, Barlesi F, Lolkema MP, Normanno N, Scarpa A, Robson M, Meric-Bernstam F, et al: Recommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with metastatic cancers: A report from the ESMO precision medicine working group. Ann Oncol. 31:1491–1505. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Mateo J, Chakravarty D, Dienstmann R, Jezdic S, Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N, Ng CK, Bedard PL, Tortora G, Douillard JY, et al: A framework to rank genomic alterations as targets for cancer precision medicine: The ESMO scale for clinical actionability of molecular targets (ESCAT). Ann Oncol. 29:1895–1902. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar