IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i3d10.1007_s40258-024-00927-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploratory Cost-Utility Analysis of a 37-Gene Panel Versus Usual Care to Guide Therapy for Patients with Intermediate-Risk Myeloid Malignancies

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Lindsay

    (QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute
    The University of Queensland)

  • Andrea Henden

    (The University of Queensland
    QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute
    Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital)

  • Ricky Nelles

    (Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital)

  • Thomas M. Elliott

    (QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute)

  • Louisa G. Collins

    (QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute
    The University of Queensland
    Queensland University of Technology)

Abstract

Objective Genomic risk stratification methods for myeloid malignancies have moved beyond conventional karyotyping and single gene approaches to better define disease behaviour. Next-generation sequencing has been established as the new standard-of-care tool to accurately define prognosis at diagnosis and guide therapy decisions. We aimed to determine the economic value of a 37-gene panel test for informing subsequent care for patients with intermediate-risk myeloid malignancies. Method We performed an exploratory cost-utility analysis of a 37-gene panel test to inform stem cell transplantation therapy in patients with myeloid malignancies in Queensland, Australia. Clinician surveys provided data on management choice with and without genomics information while both published and individual-level data were used for healthcare costs, quality of life, relapse rates and survival data. We used a decision-analytic cohort model with Markov chains and 5000 simulations to derive the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test input variation on the stability of the main findings. Results Over 10 years, the model predicted mean costs of AU$125,561 for the panel testing strategy and AU$117,045 for usual care, indicating an incremental cost of AU$8516 for panel testing. The corresponding mean QALYs were 4.52 for panel testing and 4.46 for usual care, producing a cost of AU$153,854 per QALY gained. In the Australian system, the likelihood that panel testing would be cost effective was

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Lindsay & Andrea Henden & Ricky Nelles & Thomas M. Elliott & Louisa G. Collins, 2025. "Exploratory Cost-Utility Analysis of a 37-Gene Panel Versus Usual Care to Guide Therapy for Patients with Intermediate-Risk Myeloid Malignancies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 507-517, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00927-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00927-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-024-00927-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-024-00927-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00927-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.