Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Cost-Effectiveness of liquid biopsy screening for gastric cancer in the United States.

Created on 08 Sep 2026

Authors

Jeong Yun Yang, Alice Agyekum, Kevin J Rouse, Sheila D Rustgi, Chin Hur

Published in

JNCI cancer spectrum. Sep 08, 2026. Epub Sep 08, 2026.

Abstract

Despite the frequent late-stage diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC), the U.S. lacks a routine gastric cancer screening program. Liquid biopsy (LB), specifically blood-based tests, has emerged as a potential screening approach, but it is unclear whether such a strategy is cost-effective. We therefore evaluated the cost-effectiveness of liquid biopsy screening for GC in the U.S.
A Markov model was developed to compare no screening (current standard-of-care) and two liquid biopsy screening strategies. The study used a simulated cohort of 45-year-old individuals with average risk of gastric cancer. Primary model outcomes included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A strategy was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the U.S. willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted-life-year gained.
In the base-case analysis, LB screening strategies were not cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $917,826 per QALY gained. Screening became cost-effective for high-risk subpopulations or when the per-test cost was approximately $89.
This economic evaluation of LB for GC screening found that while LB strategies are effective in reducing cancer incidence and mortality, they are not cost-effective due to high test costs. Our findings could help inform the potential planning of future clinical validation studies for LB tests used for GC screening.

PMID:
42708613
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 08 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 6
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement