Advertisement
Systematic Review|Articles in Press, 100829

Micro-costing diagnostic genomic sequencing: a systematic review

  • Francisco Santos Gonzalez
    Affiliations
    Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207-221 Bouverie St., Parkville, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia

    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Dylan Mordaunt
    Affiliations
    Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207-221 Bouverie St., Parkville, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia

    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Zornitza Stark
    Affiliations
    Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch, Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kim Dalziel
    Affiliations
    Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207-221 Bouverie St., Parkville, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • John Christodoulou
    Correspondence
    John Christodoulou, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
    Affiliations
    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Discipline of Genetic Medicine, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Ilias Goranitis
    Correspondence
    Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Ilias Goranitis, Health Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia.
    Affiliations
    Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207-221 Bouverie St., Parkville, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia

    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
Open AccessPublished:March 16, 2023DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2023.100829
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      Purpose

      Micro-costing can provide valuable economic evidence to inform the translation of genomic sequencing to clinical practice. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies employing micro-costing methods to estimate the cost of genomic sequencing to diagnose cancer and rare diseases.

      Methods

      Four electronic databases, MEDLINE, Embase, Econlit and CINAHL were searched. Reference lists of identified studies were also searched. Studies were included if they had estimated the cost of genome (GS) or exome sequencing (ES) for cancer or rare disease diagnosis using micro-costing methods.

      Results

      Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Cost estimates for GS and ES ranged between US$2,094-$9,706 and US$716-$4,817 per patient respectively. All studies disaggregated resource use and cost inputs into labor, equipment, and consumables, with consumables being the main cost component. Considerable differences in the level of detail utilized to report the steps and resources utilized in each of the sequencing steps limited study comparisons.

      Conclusion

      Defining a standard micro-costing methodology is challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of genomic sequencing. Reporting of detailed and complete sequencing procedures, inclusion of sensitivity analyses and clear justifications of resource use and measurement of unit costs can improve comparability, transferability and generalizability of study findings.

      Keywords