Health Economic Evaluations of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review

IF 2.9 2区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Cancer Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-05 DOI:10.1002/cam4.70641

Mingjun Rui, Yingcheng Wang, Joyce H. S. You

{"title":"Health Economic Evaluations of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review","authors":"Mingjun Rui, Yingcheng Wang, Joyce H. S. You","doi":"10.1002/cam4.70641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Cancer detection remains a significant global healthcare challenge, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a biomarker for noninvasive cancer screening.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This systematic review aimed to describe health economic evaluations of ctDNA for cancer screening.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A comprehensive literature search was performed (following PRISMA guidelines) across MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Center for Review and Dissemination. The review included full-scale health economic analyses such as cost–effectiveness, cost–utility, cost–benefit, and cost–consequence analyses. The quality of the included reports was assessed using CHEERS 2022 standards, and each report was categorized as excellent, very good, good, or insufficient.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Eighteen studies were selected, including four ctDNA tests (EBV-DNA, cf-DNA, mSEPT9, and mt-sDNA) for three types of cancer screening: nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) (2; 11.11%), breast cancer (BC) (1; 5.56%), and colorectal cancer (CRC) (15; 83.33%). Five studies (27.78%) found ctDNA cost-effective for CRC screening (mt-sDNA (with higher uptake than conventional tests) versus fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy (<i>n</i> = 4); mSEPT9 versus computed tomography colonoscopy (CTC) (<i>n</i> = 1)). Thirteen studies (72.22%) found ctDNA not cost-effective for NPC (EBV-DNA versus no screening (<i>n</i> = 2)); BC (cf-DNA versus conventional testing (<i>n</i> = 1)); CRC (mSEPT9 versus FIT or colonoscopy (<i>n</i> = 2)); mt-sDNA versus FIT or colonoscopy (<i>n</i> = 5); mSEPT9 or mt-sDNA versus conventional tests (<i>n</i> = 3)). The CHEERS assessment found all reports in the “very good” category.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>All ctDNA tests were generally not cost-effective comparing to conventional screening methods, except when the mt-sDNA uptake was higher than the comparators or when mSEPT9 was compared with CTC.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>CRD42023477732</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":139,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Medicine","volume":"14 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cam4.70641","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70641","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Cancer detection remains a significant global healthcare challenge, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a biomarker for noninvasive cancer screening.

Objective

This systematic review aimed to describe health economic evaluations of ctDNA for cancer screening.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed (following PRISMA guidelines) across MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Center for Review and Dissemination. The review included full-scale health economic analyses such as cost–effectiveness, cost–utility, cost–benefit, and cost–consequence analyses. The quality of the included reports was assessed using CHEERS 2022 standards, and each report was categorized as excellent, very good, good, or insufficient.

Results

Eighteen studies were selected, including four ctDNA tests (EBV-DNA, cf-DNA, mSEPT9, and mt-sDNA) for three types of cancer screening: nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) (2; 11.11%), breast cancer (BC) (1; 5.56%), and colorectal cancer (CRC) (15; 83.33%). Five studies (27.78%) found ctDNA cost-effective for CRC screening (mt-sDNA (with higher uptake than conventional tests) versus fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy (n = 4); mSEPT9 versus computed tomography colonoscopy (CTC) (n = 1)). Thirteen studies (72.22%) found ctDNA not cost-effective for NPC (EBV-DNA versus no screening (n = 2)); BC (cf-DNA versus conventional testing (n = 1)); CRC (mSEPT9 versus FIT or colonoscopy (n = 2)); mt-sDNA versus FIT or colonoscopy (n = 5); mSEPT9 or mt-sDNA versus conventional tests (n = 3)). The CHEERS assessment found all reports in the “very good” category.

Conclusion

All ctDNA tests were generally not cost-effective comparing to conventional screening methods, except when the mt-sDNA uptake was higher than the comparators or when mSEPT9 was compared with CTC.

Trial Registration

CRD42023477732

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Cancer Medicine ONCOLOGY-

CiteScore

5.50

自引率

2.50%

发文量

907

审稿时长

19 weeks

期刊介绍： Cancer Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access, interdisciplinary journal providing rapid publication of research from global biomedical researchers across the cancer sciences. The journal will consider submissions from all oncologic specialties, including, but not limited to, the following areas: Clinical Cancer Research Translational research ∙ clinical trials ∙ chemotherapy ∙ radiation therapy ∙ surgical therapy ∙ clinical observations ∙ clinical guidelines ∙ genetic consultation ∙ ethical considerations Cancer Biology: Molecular biology ∙ cellular biology ∙ molecular genetics ∙ genomics ∙ immunology ∙ epigenetics ∙ metabolic studies ∙ proteomics ∙ cytopathology ∙ carcinogenesis ∙ drug discovery and delivery. Cancer Prevention: Behavioral science ∙ psychosocial studies ∙ screening ∙ nutrition ∙ epidemiology and prevention ∙ community outreach. Bioinformatics: Gene expressions profiles ∙ gene regulation networks ∙ genome bioinformatics ∙ pathwayanalysis ∙ prognostic biomarkers. Cancer Medicine publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and research methods papers, along with invited editorials and commentaries. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.