ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025
Exploratory Cost-Utility Analysis of a 37-Gene Panel Versus Usual Care to Guide Therapy for Patients with Intermediate-Risk Myeloid Malignancies.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Health Economics of Genomic Technologies: A Growing Evidence Base on Value.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGenomic 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.
methodWe 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.
resultsOver 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 <1 % and would have a more favourable cost-effective profile at a willingness-to-pay of AU$140,000 per QALY gained.
conclusionsDriven by small gains in survival and relapse rates following therapies, genomic panel sequencing for myeloid malignancies in people with intermediate-risk disease is unlikely to be cost effective in Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39532783What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.