Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorWalsh, Kathy
dc.contributor.authorKheng, Yuan
dc.contributor.authorOniscu, Anca
dc.contributor.authorHarrison, David James
dc.contributor.authorWallace, William
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-25T14:30:06Z
dc.date.available2016-07-25T14:30:06Z
dc.date.issued2016-10
dc.identifier243385893
dc.identifier64c335e4-b428-4a12-b6c5-268b384d13a0
dc.identifier85027924318
dc.identifier000384681400018
dc.identifier.citationWalsh , K , Kheng , Y , Oniscu , A , Harrison , D J & Wallace , W 2016 , ' Could molecular pathology testing in lung cancer be more cost effective? ' , Journal of Clinical Pathology , vol. 69 , no. 10 , pp. 938-941 . https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2016-203811en
dc.identifier.issn0021-9746
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0001-9041-9988/work/64034209
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/9205
dc.description.abstractAims: EGFR and ALK analysis is routinely undertaken prior to targeted treatment of non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Increasingly limited resources require molecular pathology services to be cost effective without detriment to patient care. Methods: Data from an audit of molecular pathology testing in the South East of Scotland Cancer network has been used to explore different testing strategies with the aim of reducing costs; including investigation of TTF1 expression as a negative predictor for EGFR mutations. Results: TTF1 immunohistochemistry had a high negative predictive value for EGFR mutations (99%). Reflex testing all non-squamous NSCLC had the highest costs whereas limiting testing to those who might be considered for treatment would save 7.5%; the serial model could save 32.7%. Conclusions: Testing only patients being considered for EGFR and ALK inhibitors represented small savings; more significant savings would be achievable if testing algorithms utilized known associations between clinical biomarkers.
dc.format.extent25636
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Pathologyen
dc.subjectRB Pathologyen
dc.subjectRM Therapeutics. Pharmacologyen
dc.subjectNDASen
dc.subjectSDG 3 - Good Health and Well-beingen
dc.subject.lccRBen
dc.subject.lccRMen
dc.titleCould molecular pathology testing in lung cancer be more cost effective?en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Medicineen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2016-203811
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record