Objective

To determine whether a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel of 34 cancer-associated genes would cost-effectively aid in the treatment selection for patients with metastatic melanoma, compared with a single-site BRAF V600 mutation test.

Methods

A decision model was developed to estimate the costs and health outcomes of the two test strategies. The cost effectiveness of these two strategies was analyzed from a payer perspective over a 2-year time horizon with model parameters taken from the literature.

Results

In the base case, the gene sequencing panel strategy resulted in a cost of US$120,022 and 0.721 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient, whereas the single-site mutation test strategy resulted in a cost of US$128,965 and 0.704 QALYs. Thus, the gene sequencing panel strategy cost US$8943 less per patient and increased QALYs by 0.0174 per patient. Sensitivity analyses showed that, compared with the single-site mutation test strategy, the gene sequencing panel strategy had a 90.9% chance of having reduced costs and increased QALYs, with the cost of the gene sequencing panel test having minimal effect on the incremental cost.

Conclusion

Compared with the single-site mutation test, the use of an NGS panel of 34 cancer-associated genes as an aid in selecting therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma reduced costs and increased QALYs. If the base-case results were applied to the 8900 patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma in the USA each year, the gene sequencing panel strategy could result in an annual savings of US$79.6 million and a gain of 155 QALYs.

Amperial™ is a novel assay platform that uses immobilized antigen in a conducting polymer gel followed by detection via electrochemical measurement of oxidation-reduction reaction between H2O2/Tetrametylbenzidine and peroxidase enzyme in a completed assay complex. A highly specific and sensitive assay was developed to quantify levels of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in saliva. After establishing linearity and limit of detection we established a reference range of 5 standard deviations above the mean. There were no false positives in 667 consecutive saliva samples obtained prior to 2019. Saliva was obtained from 34 patients who had recovered from documented COVID-19 or had documented positive serologies. All of the patients with symptoms severe enough to seek medical attention had positive antibody tests and 88% overall had positive results. We obtained blinded paired saliva and plasma samples from 14 individuals. The plasma was analyzed using an EUA-FDA cleared ELISA kit and the saliva was analyzed by our Amperial™ assay. All 5 samples with negative plasma titers were negative in saliva testing. Eight of the 9 positive plasma samples were positive in saliva and 1 had borderline results. A CLIA validation was performed as a laboratory developed test in a high complexity laboratory. A quantitative non-invasive saliva based SARS-CoV-2 antibody test was developed and validated with sufficient specificity to be useful for population-based monitoring and monitoring of individuals following vaccination.