The Perceived Value of Liquid Biopsy: Results From a Canadian Validation Study of Circulating Tumor DNA T790M Testing—Patient’s Willingness-to-Pay: A Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Liquid biopsy is recommended to diagnose molecular resistance to targeted therapy in patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, not all jurisdictions provide funding and patient access. We report patients' perceived value of liquid biopsy in targeted therapy resistance. Methods: Canadian patients participating in a national EGFR T790M liquid biopsy validation study completed structured interviews measuring perceived value and willingness-to-pay for plasma circulating tumor DNA testing as an alternative to tumor biopsy using open-ended and iterative bidding approaches. Results: A total of 60 patients with advanced lung cancer participated with a median age of 64 years (range: 31-87 y); 69% were Asian and 45% female. All had received prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor; 17% also received chemotherapy. All patients preferred to have plasma testing over repeat tumor biopsy. In the context of the Canadian publicly funded system, patients estimated that a median of 300 (interquartile range: 150-800) Canadian dollars was a reasonable price to pay for liquid biopsy. Patients were personally willing to pay a median 100 (interquartile range: 33-350) Canadian dollars. Conclusions: In a system that covers the cost of standard diagnostic tests, patients with lung cancer indicated high willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket for liquid biopsy in the setting of acquired targeted therapy resistance. Patients have high perceived value of plasma genotyping and prefer it to repeat tumor biopsy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".