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.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.otherPURE: 243385893
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 64c335e4-b428-4a12-b6c5-268b384d13a0
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85027924318
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000384681400018
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.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Pathologyen
dc.rights© 2016, the Author(s). This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created, accepted version manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at jcp.bmj.com / https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2016-203863en
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.description.versionPostprinten
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