Subjects

Abstract

Purpose

Great uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole-genome sequencing (WGS).

Methods

One hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family-history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months.

Results

The incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and $5,073 in primary care settings compared with family history alone. Mean 6-month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = −$1,560, 95% confidence interval −$7,558 to $3,866, p = 0.36; primary care: difference = $681, 95% confidence interval −$884 to $2,171, p = 0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and $182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively.

Conclusion

Short-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream health care. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    McCarthy JJ, McLeod HL & Ginsburg GS. Genomic medicine: a decade of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Sci Transl Med 2013;5:189sr184.

  2. 2

    Manolio TA. Incorporating whole-genome sequencing into primary care: falling barriers and next steps. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:204–205.

  3. 3

    Armstrong K. Can genomics bend the cost curve? JAMA 2012;307:1031–1032.

  4. 4

    Phillips KA, Ann Sakowski J, Trosman J, Douglas MP, Liang S-Y & Neumann P. The economic value of personalized medicine tests: what we know and what we need to know. Genet Med 2014;16:251–257.

  5. 5

    Hatz MH, Schremser K & Rogowski WH. Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:443–455.

  6. 6

    Diamandis EP. The Hundred Person Wellness Project and Google’s Baseline Study: medical revolution or unnecessary and potentially harmful over-testing? BMC Med 2015;13:5.

  7. 7

    Caulfield T, Evans J, McGuire A et al. Reflections on the cost of “low-cost” whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate. PLoS Biol 2013;11:e1001699.

  8. 8

    Tsiplova K, Zur RM, Marshall CR et al. A microcosting and cost-consequence analysis of clinical genomic testing strategies in autism spectrum disorder. Genet Med 2017;19:1268–1275.

  9. 9

    Sabatini LM, Mathews C, Ptak D et al. Genomic sequencing procedure microcosting analysis and health economic cost-impact analysis: a report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn 2016;18:319–328.

  10. 10

    Sagoo GS, Norbury G, Mohammed S & Kroese M. Whole-Exome Sequencing in Clinical Genetics. A Health Economic Evaluation. PHG Foundation: Cambridge, UK, 2017.

  11. 11

    Stark Z, Schofield D, Alam K et al. Prospective comparison of the cost-effectiveness of clinical whole-exome sequencing with that of usual care overwhelmingly supports early use and reimbursement. Genet Med 2017;19:867–874.

  12. 12

    Tan TY, Dillon OJ, Stark Z et al. Diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness of whole-exome sequencing for ambulant children with suspected monogenic conditions. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:855–862.

  13. 13

    Hegde M, Bale S, Bayrak-Toydemir P et al. Reporting incidental findings in genomic scale clinical sequencing—a clinical laboratory perspective: a report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn 2015;17:107–117.

  14. 14

    Bennette CS, Gallego CJ, Burke W, Jarvik GP & Veenstra DL. The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing. Genet Med 2015;17:587–595.

  15. 15

    Christensen KD, Roberts JS, Whitehouse PJ et al. Disclosing pleiotropic effects during genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:155–163.

  16. 16

    Phillips KA, Pletcher MJ & Ladabaum U. Is the “$1000 genome” really $1000? Understanding the full benefits and costs of genomic sequencing. Technol Health Care 2015;23:373–379.

  17. 17

    Christensen KD, Vassy JL, Jamal L et al. Are physicians prepared for whole genome sequencing? A qualitative analysis. Clin Genet 2016;89:228–234.

  18. 18

    Vassy JL, Christensen KD, Schonman EF et al. The impact of whole genome sequencing on the primary care and outcomes of healthy adult patients: a pilot randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:159–169.

  19. 19

    Vassy J, Lautenbach D, McLaughlin H et al. The MedSeq Project: a randomized trial of integrating whole genome sequencing into clinical medicine. Trials 2014;15:85.

  20. 20

    McLaughlin HM, Ceyhan-Birsoy O, Christensen KD et al. A systematic approach to the reporting of medically relevant findings from whole genome sequencing. BMC Med Genet 2014;15:134.

  21. 21

    Kong SW, Lee IH, Leshchiner I et al. Summarizing polygenic risks for complex diseases in a clinical whole-genome report. Genet Med 2015;17:536–544.

  22. 22

    Vassy JL, McLaughlin HL, MacRae CA et al. A one-page summary report of genome sequencing for the healthy adult. Public Health Genomics 2015;18:123–129.

  23. 23

    Cirino AL, Lakdawala NK, McDonough B et al. A comparison of whole genome sequencing to multigene panel testing in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2017;10:e001768.

  24. 24

    Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—an ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2015;18:161–172.

  25. 25

    Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 2016;316:1093–1103.

  26. 26

    Frick KD. Microcosting quantity data collection methods. Med Care 2009;47(7 suppl 1): S76–S81.

  27. 27

    National Human Genome Research Institute. The cost of sequencing a human genome. 2016. https://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/. Accessed 30 Nov 2016.

  28. 28

    Dukhovny D, Dennis CL, Hodnett E et al. Prospective economic evaluation of a peer support intervention for prevention of postpartum depression among high-risk women in Ontario, Canada. Am J Perinatol 2013;30:631–642.

  29. 29

    Pagon RA, Tarczy-Hornoch P, Baskin PK et al. GeneTests-GeneClinics: genetic testing information for a growing audience. Hum Mutat 2002;19:501–509.

  30. 30

    Hamosh A, Scott AF, Amberger J, Valle D & McKusick VA. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM). Hum Mutat 2000;15:57–61.

  31. 31

    Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2017;19:249–255.

  32. 32

    Dewey FE, Grove ME, Pan C et al. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. JAMA 2014;311:1035–1045.

  33. 33

    Baudhuin LM, Lagerstedt SA, Klee EW, Fadra N, Oglesbee D & Ferber MJ. Confirming variants in next-generation sequencing panel testing by Sanger sequencing. J Mol Diagn 2015;17:456–461.

  34. 34

    Walsh R, Thomson KL, Ware JS et al. Reassessment of Mendelian gene pathogenicity using 7,855 cardiomyopathy cases and 60,706 reference samples. Genet Med 2017;19:192–203.

  35. 35

    Chakravorty S & Hegde M. Gene and variant annotation for Mendelian disorders in the era of advanced sequencing technologies. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2017;18:229–256.

  36. 36

    Berg JS, Foreman AK, O’Daniel JM et al. A semiquantitative metric for evaluating clinical actionability of incidental or secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med 2016;18:467–475.

  37. 37

    ClinGen Clinical Genome Resource. Actionability Working Group Evidence-based Summaries. 2017. https://www.clinicalgenome.org/working-groups/actionability/projects-initiatives/actionability-evidence-based-summaries/. Accessed 17 March 2017.

  38. 38

    Yu J-H, Harrell TM, Jamal SM, Tabor HK & Bamshad MJ. Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2014;95:77–84.

  39. 39

    Kohane IS, Hsing M & Kong SW. Taxonomizing, sizing, and overcoming the incidentalome. Genet Med 2012;14:399–404.

  40. 40

    Bustamante CD, Burchard EG & De La Vega FM. Genomics for the world. Nature 2011;475:163–165.

Download references

This study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants U01-HG006500, K01-HG009173, KL2-TR001100, and R01-HG007063, and Career Development Award IK2-CX001262 from the US Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Sciences Research and Development Service. This work was conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Research Resources and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health grant UL1-TR001102) and financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic health-care centers. The authors thank 5AM Solutions (Rockville, MD), for their help in customizing the workflow of the “My Family Health Portrait” Web tool for this study. The authors also thank Kenneth Freedberg, Marc Williams, and Ann Wu for their intellectual contributions to the design of these analyses.

Author information

Author notes

  1. The last two authors contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

  1. Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Kurt D Christensen MPH, PhD
    • , Carrie L Blout MS, CGC
    •  & Robert C Green MD, MPH
  2. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Kurt D Christensen MPH, PhD
    • , Jason L Vassy MD, MPH
    •  & Robert C Green MD, MPH
  3. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Jason L Vassy MD, MPH
  4. Section of General Internal Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Jason L Vassy MD, MPH
  5. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

    • Kathryn A Phillips PhD
    •  & Michael P Douglas MS
  6. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

    • Kathryn A Phillips PhD
  7. Partners HealthCare Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    • Danielle R Azzariti MS, CGC
    • , Kalotina Machini PhD
    •  & Heidi L Rehm PhD
  8. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Christine Y Lu MSc, PhD
    •  & Natasha K Stout PhD
  9. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Christine Y Lu MSc, PhD
    •  & Natasha K Stout PhD
  10. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA

    • Jill O Robinson MA
    • , Kaitlyn Lee BA
    •  & Amy L McGuire JD, PhD
  11. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Jennifer M Yeh PhD
  12. Division of General Pediatrics, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Jennifer M Yeh PhD
  13. Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Kalotina Machini PhD
    •  & Heidi L Rehm PhD
  14. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Kalotina Machini PhD
    •  & Heidi L Rehm PhD
  15. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    • Heidi L Rehm PhD
    •  & Robert C Green MD, MPH
  16. Partners HealthCare Personalized Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    • Robert C Green MD, MPH
  17. Department of Pediatrics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA

    • Dmitry Dukhovny MD, MPH

Authors

  1. Search for Kurt D Christensen MPH, PhD in:

  2. Search for Jason L Vassy MD, MPH in:

  3. Search for Kathryn A Phillips PhD in:

  4. Search for Carrie L Blout MS, CGC in:

  5. Search for Danielle R Azzariti MS, CGC in:

  6. Search for Christine Y Lu MSc, PhD in:

  7. Search for Jill O Robinson MA in:

  8. Search for Kaitlyn Lee BA in:

  9. Search for Michael P Douglas MS in:

  10. Search for Jennifer M Yeh PhD in:

  11. Search for Kalotina Machini PhD in:

  12. Search for Natasha K Stout PhD in:

  13. Search for Heidi L Rehm PhD in:

  14. Search for Amy L McGuire JD, PhD in:

  15. Search for Robert C Green MD, MPH in:

  16. Search for Dmitry Dukhovny MD, MPH in:

Consortia

  1. for the MedSeq Project

    Disclosure

    The authors declare the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: R.C.G. reports personal fees from Illumina, Helix, GenePeeks, Veritas, and Ohana and is a cofounder with equity in Genome Medical. D.D. reports consulting for Vermont Oxford Network, Gerson Lehrman Group, and ClearView Healthcare Partners and being faculty for Vermont Oxford Network outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Kurt D Christensen MPH, PhD.

    Electronic supplementary material

    About this article

    Publication history

    Received

    Accepted

    Published

    DOI

    https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2018.35

    Further reading