1. Health
Download icon

Modelling the Economic Impact of Next Generation Sequencing and Precision Medicine on Childhood Cancer Management—a Microsimulation Approach

  1. Owen Tan  Is a corresponding author
  2. Deborah J Schofield
  3. Tracey O’Brien
  4. Toby Trahair
  5. Rupendra N Shrestha
  1. GeIMPACT: Centre for Economic Impacts of Genomic Medicine, Macquarie Business School, Australia
  2. School of Women’s and Children’s Health, Australia
  3. Kids Cancer Centre, Australia
  4. Children’s Cancer Institute, Australia
Research article
Cite this article as: O. Tan, D. J Schofield, T. O’Brien, T. Trahair, R. N Shrestha; 2021; Modelling the Economic Impact of Next Generation Sequencing and Precision Medicine on Childhood Cancer Management—a Microsimulation Approach; International Journal of Microsimulation; 14(1); 73-91. doi: 10.34196/ijm.00230
3 figures and 6 tables

Figures

Structure of PeCanMOD
Model schematic of decision tree for testing and initial treatment.
Heat map shows frequency of mutations (normalised and represented as Z-scores) in each gene in (A) reference population, i.e. Foundation Medicine dataset, and (B) NSW Central Cancer Registry population simulation output.

Note: Each column along the horizontal axis represents a gene responsible for cancers. Distribution of genomic variants were significantly correlated between the reference population and NSW Central Cancer Registry simulation output (ρ=0.73, p<0.01) (details list of genes is described in Appendix 1).

Tables

Table 1
Characteristics of childhood cancer population in NSW Central Cancer Registry and selected individuals used in the model.
Total childhood cancer population from NSW Central Cancer Registry (2001-2012) Selected individuals for simulation model
N % N %
Sex Sex
Male 1639 55.26 Male 303 56.01
Female 1327 44.74 Female 238 43.99
Age at diagnosis Age at diagnosis
0-4 1117 37.66 0-4 193 35.67
5-9 528 17.8 5-9 99 18.3
10-14 632 21.31 10-14 119 22
15-17 689 23.23 15-17 130 24.03
Cancer types Cancer types
-Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia 712 23.78 Brain 159 29.39
-Brain 342 11.42 Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia 92 17.01
-Hodgkin’s disease 210 7.01 Bone 54 9.98
-Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 186 6.21 Acute myeloid leukaemia 42 7.76
-Bone 177 5.91 Connective tissue, peripheral nerves 38 7.02
-Acute myeloid leukaemia 168 5.61 Other endocrine glands 33 6.1
-Connective tissue, peripheral nerves 148 4.94 Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 22 4.07
-Kidney 134 4.48 All other cancer types 101 18.6
-Other endocrine glands 113 3.77
-Melanoma of skin 106 3.54
-Colon 70 2.34
-Thyroid 68 2.27
-Testis 67 2.24
-Central nervous system 67 2.24
-Ill-defined and unspecified site 60 2
-Eye 59 1.97
-Other lymphatic, hematopoietic 49 1.64
-Liver 41 1.37
-Ovary 41 1.37
-Other myeloid leukaemia 27 0.9
-Other thoracic organs 20 0.67
-All other cancer types 129 4.31
Year of diagnosis Year of diagnosis
2001* 144 4.86 2001* 34 6.28
2002 261 8.80 2002 60 11.09
2003 249 8.40 2003 58 10.72
2004 259 8.73 2004 45 8.32
2005 241 8.13 2005 52 9.61
2006 261 8.80 2006 41 7.58
2007 229 7.72 2007 45 8.32
2008 226 7.62 2008 40 7.39
2009 256 8.63 2009 46 8.5
2010 270 9.10 2010 40 7.39
2011 277 9.34 2011 32 5.91
2012 293 9.88 2012 48 8.87
  1. *

    2001 data started from 1st of July.

  2. Including cancer types with equal or less than 20 records.

  3. Selected individuals were those who were eventually deceased due to their illness.

Table 2
Comparison of reference datasets for genomic variants distribution imputation.
Datasets % of base file matched with reference dataset (by cancer types)
Foundation Medicine Pediatric Portal 73
Grobner et al. 57
Rusch et al. 24
Ma et al. 10
Table 3
Genomic variants eligible for precision medicine and the corresponding drugs.
Drugs Genomic variants eligible for precision medicine
Larotrectinib NTRK1,NTRK2,NTRK3
Erdafitinib FGFR1,FGFR2,FGFR3,FGFR4
Tazemetostat EZH2 gain of function,EZH2,BRG1,INI1,SMARCA4 inactivation,SMARCB1 inactivation
Samotolisib TSC1,TSC2
Selumetinib Sulfate BRAF,GNA11,GNAQ,HRAS,KRAS,NF1,NRAS
Ensartinib ALK fusion protein, ALK gene mutation, ALK gene translocation,ROS1 fusion positive,ROS1 gene mutation,ROS1 gene translocation
Vemurafenib BRAF v600x
Olaparib Deleterious ATM, Deleterious BRCA1, Deleterious BRCA2, Deleterious RAD51C, Deleterious RAD51D
Palbociclib RB1
Ulixertinib ARAF,BRAF,GNA11,GNAQ,HRAS,KRAS,MAP2K1,MAPK1,NF1,NRAS
Table 4
Model inputs-- response rate to drugs.
Drugs Mean response rate Distribution § Source/note
Larotrectinib 0.73 Binomial (55,0.73) Food and Drug Administration, 2018
Erdafitinib 0.322 Binomial (87,0.322) Food and Drug Administration, 2019
Tazemetostat* 0.38 or 0.05 Binomial(21,0.38) or Binomial(43,0.05) Italiano et al., 2018
Samotolisib 0.34 Binomial (47,0.34) Bendell et al., 2018
Selumetinib Sulfate 0.17 Binomial (36,0.17) Jain et al., 2014
Ensartinib 0.69 Binomial (13,0.69) Horn et al., 2017
Vemurafenib range (0.17-0.769) Hyman et al., 2015
Olaparib 0.53 Binomial (92,0.53) Golan et al., 2019
Palbociclib 0.5 Triangular (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) n.a.
Ulixertinib 0.14 Binomial (101,0.14) Sullivan et al., 2018
  1. *

    Depending on cancer types (for blood cancers, response rate was assumed to be 0.38, and 0.05 for solid cancers).

  2. response rate varies by cancer types.

  3. There is no data available for Palbociclib, so we assumed 0.5 response rate with a triangular distribution of ±0.25.

  4. §

    Binomial (N,p), triangular (a, c, b).

Table 5
Model inputs-- duration of response.
Drugs Mean duration of response Weibull (shape, scale) Source/note
Larotrectinib 6 months (2.45,10.45) Food and Drug Administration, 2018
Erdafitinib 5.4 months (1.86,6.58) Food and Drug Administration, 2019
Tazemetostat 12.4 months (1.8,19.7) Italiano et al., 2018
Samotolisib 6 months (1.55,7.6) Bendell et al., 2018
Selumetinib Sulfate 2 months (1.3,2.65) Jain et al., 2014
Ensartinib 5.8 months (1.57,7.3) Horn et al., 2017
Vemurafenib* range (3-13 months) (1.81,8.57) Hyman et al., 2015
Olaparib 6 months (1.95,21.73) Golan et al., 2019
Palbociclib 9.5 months (1.53,12.06) McShane et al., 2018
Ulixertinib 6.6 months (1.73,8.16) Sullivan et al., 2018
  1. *

    Duration of response varies by cancer types.

Table 6
Model inputs, including costs of medicine, drug admission at hospital, toxicity management, and sequencing.
Drugs Mean monthly cost (US$) Mean monthly cost (AU$) Source/note
Larotrectinib 11,000 (range: 8,250-13,750) 15,629 (range:11,722-19,536) Herper, 2018
Erdafitinib 16,380 (range: 12,285-20,475) 23,273 (range: 17,455-29,091) Pagliarulo, 2019
Tazemetostat N/A 11,658 (range: 8,744-14,573) Average of drug prices of Larotrectinib, Erdafitinib, Vemurafenib, Olaparib, and Palbociclib
Samotolisib N/A 11,658 (range: 8,744-14,573) Average of drug prices of Larotrectinib, Erdafitinib, Vemurafenib, Olaparib, and Palbociclib
Selumetinib Sulfate N/A 11,658 (range: 8,744-14,573) Average of drug prices of Larotrectinib, Erdafitinib, Vemurafenib, Olaparib, and Palbociclib
Ensartinib N/A 11,658 (range: 8,744-14,573) Average of drug prices of Larotrectinib, Erdafitinib, Vemurafenib, Olaparib, and Palbociclib
Vemurafenib N/A 8,189 (range: 6,142-10,236) Pharmaceutical BenefitsScheme, 2019c
Olaparib N/A 6,961 (range: 5,221-8,701) Pharmaceutical BenefitsScheme, 2019a
Palbociclib N/A 4,239 (range: 3,179-5,299) Pharmaceutical BenefitsScheme, 2019b
Ulixertinib N/A 11,658 (range: 8,744-14,573) Average of drug prices of Larotrectinib, Erdafitinib, Vemurafenib, Olaparib, and Palbociclib
Hospital care Mean monthly cost per person (US$) Mean monthly cost per person (AU$)
Admission for drug treatment N/A 901 (range: 676-1,126) AR-DRGs
Managing toxicity/adverse drug events N/A 5,230 (range: 3,923-6,538)
Sequencing Mean cost per service (USD) Mean cost per service (AUD)
Whole-genome sequencing 3,347 (range: 2,032-30,805) 4,926 (range: 2,991-45,333) Gordon et al., 2020; Schwarze et al., 2020; Schwarze et al., 2018; Weymann et al., 2017
Targeted multi-gene panel sequencing 1,236 (range: 525-6916) 1,433 (range: 773-10,178) Gordon et al., 2020; Hamblin et al., 2017an van Amerongen et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2018

Data and code availability

The data underlying the model are confidential. However, the authors are happy to discuss the methods used in model development. The code is not available due to the confidential nature of the data underlying the study. However, the authors are happy to discuss the approach taken to model development.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)