Spencer et al. publish a nice health economics paper on the cost effectiveness of CGP. (In the US, they find it's $175,000 per QALY). It compares US and German cost-effectiveness in several scenarios.
It's not open access but I believe JMD comes with a membership in AMP.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40701291/
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Using Real-World Data
Scott Spencer 1, Weicheng Ye 2, Siyang Peng 3, Denise Zou 2
Affiliations Expand
PMID: 40701291 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2025.05.011
Abstract
Cancer treatment costs pose a significant global economic burden. By facilitating treatment plans tailored to the genomic profile of patients' cancer, genomic testing has the potential to reduce health care costs. Using real-world evidence, this study compared the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) versus small panel (SP) testing in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States and Germany. A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the life years and drug acquisition costs associated with CGP and SP testing in patients receiving matched targeted therapy, matched immunotherapy, or no matched therapy/untreated.
Key model parameters were informed by real-world data derived from the Syapse study. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. CGP improved the average overall survival by 0.10 years compared with SP.
CGP was associated with higher health care costs because of a higher percentage of patients receiving targeted therapies. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CGP versus SP was $174,782 and $63,158 per life-year gained in the United States and Germany, respectively. Increasing the number of patients receiving treatment decreased the ICERs ($86,826 in the United States and $29,235 in Germany), while switching from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone increased the ICERs ($223,226 in the United States and $83,333 in Germany). Altogether, CGP has the potential to improve patient outcomes and is more cost-effective than SP.
