ArticleOncology and therapy2026
Real-World Testing Landscape and Costs of Companion Diagnostics and Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Across Nine Solid Tumors in Japan: A 10-Year Analysis.
Article in Oncology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to examine utilization, testing sequences, and associated genomic testing costs of companion diagnostics (CDx) and comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) among Japanese patients with nine representative solid tumors.
methodsThis retrospective study used anonymized data, from Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. (MDV; January 2015-March 2025) and JMDC Inc. (JMDC; January 2015-January 2025), for patients with solid tumors of nine cancer types who underwent CDx and/or CGP testing or received any cancer treatment. Patient demographics, distribution and testing sequences of CDx and CGP, and associated genomic testing costs per patient were evaluated.
resultsProportions of CDx and CGP testing varied across nine cancer types. Most patients underwent CDx testing once or twice, although some cohorts, particularly with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), were tested thrice or more. Biliary tract cancer demonstrated the highest proportions for CGP testing alone, and both CDx and CGP testing. For both CDx and CGP testing, the greatest median costs were observed for ovarian and breast cancers, with bimodal peaks near US dollars (USD) 4000 and USD 5000. Median CDx costs were equal to or higher for patients who underwent both CDx and CGP testing compared with those who had CDx testing alone, particularly in breast, pancreatic, prostate, and ovarian cancers. For CDx testing alone, NSCLC, ovarian cancer, and prostate cancer had the highest costs, with a small peak near USD 1333. These results were mostly consistent across databases.
conclusionsMultiple CDx testing followed by CGP testing increased genomic testing costs per patient. Early implementation of CGP testing could reduce redundant testing and associated delays in treatment, thereby contributing to lower overall healthcare costs and more efficient treatment selection amid rapid advances in targeted therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42700199What 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.