↓ Skip to main content

Scenario drafting for early technology assessment of next generation sequencing in clinical oncology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Scenario drafting for early technology assessment of next generation sequencing in clinical oncology
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2100-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

S.E.P. Joosten, V.P. Retèl, V.M.H. Coupé, M.M. van den Heuvel, W.H. van Harten

Abstract

Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is expected to lift molecular diagnostics in clinical oncology to the next level. It enables simultaneous identification of mutations in a patient tumor, after which targeted therapy may be assigned. This approach could improve patient survival and/or assist in controlling healthcare costs by offering expensive treatment to only those likely to benefit. However, NGS has yet to make its way into the clinic. Health Technology Assessment can support the adoption and implementation of a novel technology, but at this early stage many of the required variables are still unknown. Scenario drafting and expert elicitation via a questionnaire were used to identify factors that may act as a barrier or facilitate adoption of NGS-based molecular diagnostics. Attention was paid to predominantly elicit quantitative answers, allowing their use in future modelling of cost-effectiveness. Adequately informing patients and physicians, the latters' opinion on clinical utility and underlying evidence as well as presenting sequencing results within a relevant timeframe may act as pivotal facilitators. Reimbursement for NGS-based testing and accompanying therapies (both general and in case of off-label prescription) was found to be a potential barrier. Competition on the market and demonstrating clinical utility may also be challenging. Importantly, numerous quantitative values for variables related to each of these potential barriers/facilitators, such as such as desired panel characteristics, willingness to pay or the expected number of targets identified per person, were also elicited. We have identified several factors that may either pose a barrier or facilitate the adoption of NGS in the clinic. We believe acting upon these findings, for instance by organizing educational events, advocating new ways of evidence generation and steering towards the most cost-effective solution, will accelerate the route from bench-to-bedside. Moreover, due to the methodology of expert elicitation, this study provides parameters that can be incorporated in future cost-effectiveness modeling to steer the development of NGS gene panels towards the most optimal direction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 22 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 8%
Engineering 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 25 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,342,846
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,824
of 8,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,404
of 400,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#57
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,487 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.