Loading
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics / Multiple and Secondary Primary Cancers · Journal article
Oncology and Therapy · September 5, 2026
Early or partial results. Treat as a signal, not a conclusion.
This retrospective analysis of Japanese healthcare databases describes patterns of companion diagnostic (CDx) and comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) testing utilization and associated costs across nine solid tumor types over a 10-year period. Testing frequencies and costs varied substantially by cancer type, with sequential CDx followed by CGP associated with higher per-patient genomic testing costs; the authors propose early CGP implementation as a potential cost-reduction strategy, though clinical outcomes and treatment delays are not measured.
Retrospective cohort study (real-world database analysis). Japanese patients with nine representative solid tumor types (NSCLC, breast, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, biliary tract, and others) who underwent CDx and/or CGP testing or received any cancer treatment.. Intervention: Companion diagnostic (CDx) and comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) testing. Japan (two national healthcare databases: Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. and JMDC Inc.).
Most patients underwent CDx testing once or twice; NSCLC cohorts showed testing thrice or more Biliary tract cancer demonstrated highest proportions for CGP testing alone and combined CDx+CGP testing Median costs for both CDx and CGP testing were greatest in ovarian and breast cancers, with bimodal peaks near USD 4000 and USD 5000
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
This analysis demonstrates substantial variation in genomic testing utilization and costs by cancer type in a real-world Japanese setting. Clinicians should recognize that sequential CDx followed by CGP increases per-patient costs; however, the study does not measure clinical outcomes, time-to-treatment, or efficacy, so the recommendation to implement early CGP remains speculative.
Retrospective real-world database analysis of testing utilization and costs across nine cancer types; descriptive findings on patterns and cost variation, but without comparative efficacy, clinical outcome, or causal inference.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
This analysis demonstrates substantial variation in genomic testing utilization and costs by cancer type in a real-world Japanese setting. Clinicians should recognize that sequential CDx followed by CGP increases per-patient costs; however, the study does not measure clinical outcomes, time-to-treatment, or efficacy, so the recommendation to implement early CGP remains speculative.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This study aimed to examine utilization, testing sequences, and associated genomic testing costs of companion diagnostics (CDx) and comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) among Japanese patients with nine representative solid tumors. This retrospective study used anonymized data, from Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. (MDV; January 2015-March 2025) and JMDC Inc. (JMDC; January 2015-January 2025), for patients with solid tumors of nine cancer types who underwent CDx and/or CGP testing or received any cancer treatment. Patient demographics, distribution and testing sequences of CDx and CGP, and associated genomic testing costs per patient were evaluated. Proportions of CDx and CGP testing varied across nine cancer types. Most patients underwent CDx testing once or twice, although some cohorts, particularly with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), were tested thrice or more. Biliary tract cancer demonstrated the highest proportions for CGP testing alone, and both CDx and CGP testing. For both CDx and CGP testing, the greatest median costs were observed for ovarian and breast cancers, with bimodal peaks near US dollars (USD) 4000 and USD 5000. Median CDx costs were equal to or higher for patients who underwent both CDx and CGP testing compared with those who had CDx testing alone, particularly in breast, pancreatic, prostate, and ovarian cancers. For CDx testing alone, NSCLC, ovarian cancer, and prostate cancer had the highest costs, with a small peak near USD 1333. These results were mostly consistent across databases. Multiple CDx testing followed by CGP testing increased genomic testing costs per patient. Early implementation of CGP testing could reduce redundant testing and associated delays in treatment, thereby contributing to lower overall healthcare costs and more efficient treatment selection amid rapid advances in targeted therapies.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.