INCREMENTAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT OF EXPANDING CANCER BIOBANK FUNDING: A PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS FROM CHILE
Author(s)
Carlos Balmaceda, MPhil, MSc1, Pilar Alejandra Contreras Montiel, MSc2, Gerardo Donoso, MSc3, Alicia Colombo, PhD, MSc4, Juan Carlos Roa, MSc, MD5, Enrique Castellon, PhD4, Manuel Antonio Espinoza, MSc, PhD, MD6.
1Post-doctoral Fellow, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy, 2Center for Cancer Prevention and Control (CECAN), Santiago, Chile, 3Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Clínico, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 4Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 5Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 6The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
1Post-doctoral Fellow, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy, 2Center for Cancer Prevention and Control (CECAN), Santiago, Chile, 3Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Clínico, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 4Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 5Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 6The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
OBJECTIVES: Return-on-investment (ROI) analyses of cancer biobanks typically assess past spending, yet funders must decide whether to increase budgets going forward—a pressing question amid pressure on science funding in Chile. We estimated the incremental health ROI of expanding the budgets of Chile's two largest cancer biobanks, recognising them as mature infrastructure whose marginal productivity should be calibrated on their consolidated operating phase.
METHODS: Using biobank-year data (2013-2024) for the Tissue and Fluid Biobanks of Universidad de Chile (BTUCH) and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (BBPUC), we measured each biobank's recent (2019-2024) scientific productivity—peer-reviewed oncology articles per peso of operating expenditure. Counting only articles (one-to-one, unweighted) is deliberately conservative. Because both biobanks are established, this marginal productivity reflects existing samples, protocols, and networks rather than start-up costs. We applied it to a defined 2025-2035 investment plan to project additional articles, translated into averted cancer disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) following Marquina et al.: 33% of health gains attributed to research, weighted by Chile's global oncology share, monetised with the Chilean value of a statistical life year. Incremental benefit-cost ratios (BCR) were computed across lag (20/40-year) and discount (0%/3%) scenarios; uncertainty via Monte Carlo simulation (20,000 iterations).
RESULTS: The plan generated 9.4 additional oncology articles. In the conservative base case (40-year lag, 3% discount), the incremental BCR was 2.83 (BBPUC), 1.38 (BTUCH), and 1.76 combined—above break-even. Every scenario exceeded a BCR of 1: shortening the lag to 20 years raised it to 2.18, and undiscounted benefits reached 5.18. Monte Carlo simulation yielded a BCR above 1 in 95% of iterations (median 2.46).
CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the budgets of established cancer biobanks yields a robustly positive incremental return. Because additional funding builds on already-installed capital, marginal productivity is high—evidence that sustaining and growing, rather than cutting, investment in consolidated research infrastructure is economically justified, even under conservative assumptions.
METHODS: Using biobank-year data (2013-2024) for the Tissue and Fluid Biobanks of Universidad de Chile (BTUCH) and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (BBPUC), we measured each biobank's recent (2019-2024) scientific productivity—peer-reviewed oncology articles per peso of operating expenditure. Counting only articles (one-to-one, unweighted) is deliberately conservative. Because both biobanks are established, this marginal productivity reflects existing samples, protocols, and networks rather than start-up costs. We applied it to a defined 2025-2035 investment plan to project additional articles, translated into averted cancer disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) following Marquina et al.: 33% of health gains attributed to research, weighted by Chile's global oncology share, monetised with the Chilean value of a statistical life year. Incremental benefit-cost ratios (BCR) were computed across lag (20/40-year) and discount (0%/3%) scenarios; uncertainty via Monte Carlo simulation (20,000 iterations).
RESULTS: The plan generated 9.4 additional oncology articles. In the conservative base case (40-year lag, 3% discount), the incremental BCR was 2.83 (BBPUC), 1.38 (BTUCH), and 1.76 combined—above break-even. Every scenario exceeded a BCR of 1: shortening the lag to 20 years raised it to 2.18, and undiscounted benefits reached 5.18. Monte Carlo simulation yielded a BCR above 1 in 95% of iterations (median 2.46).
CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the budgets of established cancer biobanks yields a robustly positive incremental return. Because additional funding builds on already-installed capital, marginal productivity is high—evidence that sustaining and growing, rather than cutting, investment in consolidated research infrastructure is economically justified, even under conservative assumptions.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE71
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Epidemiology & Public Health, Health Policy & Regulatory
Disease
Oncology