Dynamic Simulation Modeling to Analyze the Impact of Whole Genome Sequencing National Implementation Scenarios in Lung cancer on Time-to-Treatment, Costs and Patient Demand
van de Ven, M.; Koffijberg, H.; Retel, V.; van Harten, W.; IJzerman, M.
Show abstract
BackgroundAlthough Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is increasingly proposed to unravel molecular origins of advanced cancers, it is less clear if and how WGS should be routinely offered in the health service. The objective of this study is to investigate how the cost per patient and time-to-treatment is affected if WGS were implemented in the national health system and how these outcomes differ among subgroups of patients with lung cancer. This first-ever study used health systems simulation modeling to analyze implementation scenarios ensuring sustainable access to cancer treatment. MethodsA base case and three scenarios (varying stage of disease and hospitals offering WGS) the optimal placement of WGS in the diagnostic pathway was simulated using a dynamic simulation model. The model simulated lung cancer patients undergoing molecular diagnostic procedures in one or multiple hospitals. The model also included patient and healthcare provider heterogeneity as well as referral patterns of lung cancer (LC) patients using patient-level data obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Model outcomes were the time-to-treatment, total diagnostic cost, and the demand for WGS sequencing capacity including the expertise of a molecular tumor board. ResultsThe time-to-treatment ranged between 20-46 days for all four scenarios considered. The cost of molecular diagnostic testing per patient ranged from {euro}621 in the base case to {euro}1930 in the scenario where all LC patients (stage I-IV) receive upfront WGS. Compared to the base case, upfront testing using WGS in all LC patients led to a 33% reduction in the time-to-treatment, a 210% increase in the cost per patient and a six-fold increase in total diagnostic costs. ConclusionsThis first-ever study investigating implementation scenarios demonstrated that upfront WGS for all lung cancer patients can reduce the time to treatment yet at a higher cost. However, upfront WGS also reduces diagnostic pathway complexity, which may improve care planning and treatment efficiency. The model is versatile in its approach to study the impact of price discounts or the amount of actionable targets tested for and further analysis showed discounts on consumables up to 50% imply WGS would the preferred strategy.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Reduced turnaround times through multi-sectoral collaboration during the first surge of SARS-CoV-2 in Louisiana, March-April 2020 90%
- A flexible method for optimising sharing of healthcare resources and demand in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic 89%
- Identifying Optimal COVID-19 Testing Strategies for Schools and Businesses: Balancing Testing Frequency, Individual Test Technology, and Cost 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- On the predictability of postoperative complications for cancer patients: a Portuguese cohort study 89%
- An Interpretable Risk Prediction Model for Healthcare with Pattern Attention 89%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modifying adaptive therapy to enhance competitive suppression 89%
- Standing Variations Modeling Captures Inter-Individual Heterogeneity in a Deterministic Model of Prostate Cancer Response to Combination Therapy 89%
- Use of high-plex data reveals novel insights into the tumour microenvironment of clear cell renal cell carcinoma 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting bloodstream infection outcome using machine learning 90%
- Mitigating Machine Learning Bias Between High Income and Low-Middle Income Countries for Enhanced Model Fairness and Generalizability 89%
- Novel ratio-metric features enable the identification of new driver genes across cancer types 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.