Impact on costs and outcomes of multi-gene panel testing for advanced solid malignancies: A cost consequence analysis using linked administrative data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6650 Background: To date, economic analyses of tissue-based next generation sequencing genomic profiling (NGS) have required models with multiple assumptions, with little real-world evidence on overall survival (OS), clinical trial enrollment or end-of-life (EOL) quality of care. The OCTANE clinical trial (NCT02906943) is a prospective study evaluating the role of NGS for advanced solid tumors in Ontario, Canada. We performed a cost consequence analysis of OCTANE. Methods: We undertook a longitudinal, propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data. OCTANE patients (pts) at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 2016 until March 2019 undergoing NGS panel testing (555 or 163-gene panels) were matched with contemporary controls from across Ontario not enrolled in OCTANE. Patients were matched according to 19 variables including age, sex, place of residence, tumor site, symptom burden, income quintile, comorbidities and prior lines of systemic therapy. Primary outcomes were mean per capita health care costs (2019 Canadian dollars [CAD]) from the public payer’s perspective, OS, clinical trial enrollment and EOL quality metrics. Full 2-year follow-up data was available. Sensitivity analyses considered alternative matched cohort specifications. Results: There were 782 OCTANE pts with 782 matched controls. Variables were balanced after matching (standardized difference [std. diff.]<0.10). Most common tumor sites were: Ovary (30.4%), endometrium (15.0%) breast (12.3%) and colon (8.6%). OCTANE pts had higher mean healthcare costs than controls ($79,702 vs. $59,550), mainly due to costs of oncology visits ($33,165 vs. $26,197), outpatient clinic visits ($8,696 vs. $5,114) and emergency visits ($1,723 vs. $1,373) (all p<0.05). Publicly funded drug costs were less for OCTANE pts ($20,015 vs. $24,465). Overall, OCTANE enrollment was not associated with improved OS (restricted mean survival time (RMST) [standard error]: 1.50 (±0.03) vs. 1.44 (±0.03) years, log-rank p=0.153), but OCTANE was associated with longer OS in ovarian cancer (RMST: 1.69 (±0.05) vs. 1.45 (±0.06) years, p=0.011) and biliary tract tumors (RMST: 1.16 (±0.13) vs. 0.80 (±0.11) years, p=0.02). Importantly, OCTANE correlated with increased clinical trial enrollment (25.5% vs. 9.5%, p<0.001) and better EOL quality due to fewer deaths in hospital (10.2% vs 16.4%, p=0.003). Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: There was an increase in healthcare costs associated with NGS testing for advanced cancers. The impact on OS was not significant in the overall population, but varied across tumor types. OCTANE was associated with greater trial enrollment, lower publicly funded drug costs and fewer in hospital deaths suggesting important considerations in determining the value of NGS for advanced cancers. Clinical trial information: NCT02906943 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".