Table 3 Parameters and corresponding questions
From: Scenario drafting for early technology assessment of next generation sequencing in clinical oncology
Domain | Parameter | Q | Average ± SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Social factors | Patients interested in NGS (prim/meta) | Q1 | 28,3 ± 29,2/65,3 ± 32,1 | |
Patients interested in trial (prim/meta) | Q2 | 41,5 ± 26,6/78,2 ± 16,1 | ||
Consult extra (min) | Q3 | 13,2 ± 12,4 | ||
Education extra (hrs.) | Q10 | 25,1 ± 26,1 | ||
NGS Adoption given: | RCT3 | Q6 | 84,9 ± 23,6 | |
Pros. observational | 62,3 ± 20,3 | |||
Retro. observational | 39,6 ± 22,6 | |||
Lower levels | 16,7 ± 8,6 | |||
Technical Factors | Max. turnover rate (days) | Q9 | 17,8 ± 21,3 | |
Dutch institutes able to supply FF | Q16 | 50,5 ± 36,5 | ||
Min. sensitivity/specificity | Q15 | 90,5 ± 5,7/89,0 ± 9,7 | ||
Max. failure rate | Q17 | 18,4 ± 20,1 | ||
Re-biopsy decline: | CRC | Q18 | 33,3 ± 23,6 | |
NSCLC | 30,0 ± 22,9 | |||
Melanoma | 8,5 ± 5,9 | |||
Re-biopsy unfeasible: | CRC | Q19 | 19,2 ± 11,1 | |
NSCLC | 22,9 ± 16,0 | |||
Melanoma | 9,3 ± 10,0 | |||
Min. storage tissue (yrs.) | Q14 | 24,2 ± 22,1 | ||
Min. storage NGS results (yrs.) | Q13 | 22,6 ± 21,4 | ||
Reimbursement | Pay extra for NGS panel (euro) | Q12 | 380,8 ± 316,6 | |
Probability opt for NGS panel if €1000 | Q40 | 44,0 ± 44,0 | ||
Clinical utility and evidence generation | Nb. Targets per patient | Q37 | 6,6 ± 7,5 | |
Nb. new therapies in five years | Q29 | 22,5 ± 20,4 | ||
Off-label therapy required | Q22 | 30,2 ± 26,5 | ||
Physicians willing to prescribe off-label | Q23 | 44,6 ± 31,6 | ||
Probability reimbursement off-label | Q27 | 28,0 ± 32,0 | ||
Lenient towards off-label (yrs.) | Q26 | 9,8 ± 12,4 | ||
Market access | Min. years NGS common practice | Q33 | 6,5 ± 6,3 | |
Min. years competition other technology | Q35 | 9,6 ± 5,5 | ||