Towards Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Predictive, Prognostic, and Serial Biomarker Tests in Oncology

Astrid Kramer, Lucas F. Schaik, Daan Broek, Gerrit A. Meijer, Iñaki Gutierrez Ibarluzea, Lorea Galnares Cordero, Remond J. A. Fijneman, Marjolijn J. L. Ligtenberg, Ed Schuuring, Wim H. Harten, Veerle M. H. Coupé and Valesca P. Retèl ()
Additional contact information
Astrid Kramer: Amsterdam University Medical Centers
Lucas F. Schaik: The Netherlands Cancer Institute
Daan Broek: The Netherlands Cancer Institute
Gerrit A. Meijer: The Netherlands Cancer Institute
Iñaki Gutierrez Ibarluzea: Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment-Osteba
Lorea Galnares Cordero: Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment-Osteba
Remond J. A. Fijneman: The Netherlands Cancer Institute
Marjolijn J. L. Ligtenberg: Radboudumc
Ed Schuuring: University of Groningen
Wim H. Harten: The Netherlands Cancer Institute
Veerle M. H. Coupé: Amsterdam University Medical Centers
Valesca P. Retèl: The Netherlands Cancer Institute

PharmacoEconomics, 2025, vol. 43, issue 5, No 3, 483-497

Abstract: Abstract Background Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of biomarkers is challenging due to the indirect impact on health outcomes and the lack of sufficient fit-for-purpose data. Hands-on guidance is lacking. Objective We aimed firstly to explore how CEAs in the context of three different types of biomarker applications have addressed these challenges, and secondly to develop recommendations for future CEAs. Methods A scoping review was performed for three biomarker applications: predictive, prognostic, and serial testing, in advanced non-small cell lung cancer, early-stage colorectal cancer, and all-stage colorectal cancer, respectively. Information was extracted on the model assumptions and uncertainty, and the reported outcomes. An in-depth analysis of the literature was performed describing the impact of model assumptions in the included studies. Results A total of 43 CEAs were included (31 predictive, 6 prognostic, and 6 serial testing). Of these, 40 utilized different sources for test and treatment parameters, and three studies utilized a single source. Test performance was included in 78% of these studies utilizing different sources, but this parameter was differently expressed across biomarker applications. Sensitivity analyses for test performance was only performed in half of these studies. For the linkage of test results to treatments outcomes, a minority of the studies explored the impact of suboptimal adherence to test results, and/or explored potential differences in treatment effects for different biomarker subgroups. Intermediate outcomes were reported by 67% of studies. Conclusions We identified various approaches for dealing with challenges in CEAs of biomarker tests for three different biomarker applications. Recommendations on assumptions, handling uncertainty, and reported outcomes were drafted to enhance modeling practices for future biomarker cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Date: 2025
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-025-01470-7 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01470-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01470-7

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().