Literature DB >> 24750007

The Technique, Resources and Costs of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of Dose Regimens and Delivery Systems.

Waseem Sharieff1, Jeffrey N Greenspoon2, Ian Dayes2, Tom Chow2, James Wright2, Himu Lukka2.   

Abstract

Robotic system has been used for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of prostate cancer. Arc-based and fixed-gantry systems are used for hypofractionated regimens (10-20 fractions) and the standard regimen (39 fractions); they may also be used to deliver SBRT. Studies are currently underway to compare efficacy and safety of these systems and regimens. Thus, we describe the technique and required resources for the provision of robotic SBRT in relation to the standard regimen and other systems to guide investment decisions. Using administrative data of resource volumes and unit prices, we computed the cost per patient, cost per cure and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) of four regimens (5, 12, 20 and 39 fractions) and three delivery systems (robotic, arc-based and fixed-gantry) from a payer's perspective. We performed sensitivity analyses to examine the effects of daily hours of operation and in-room treatment delivery times on cost per patient. In addition, we estimated the budget impact when a robotic system is preferred over an arc-based or fixed-gantry system. Costs of SBRT were $6333/patient (robotic), $4368/patient (arc-based) and $4443/patient (fixed-gantry). When daily hours of operation were varied, the cost of robotic SBRT varied from $9324/patient (2 hours daily) to $5250/patient (10 hours daily). This was comparable to the costs of 39 fraction standard regimen which were $5935/patient (arc-based) and $7992/ patient (fixed-gantry). In settings of moderate to high patient volume, robotic SBRT is cost effective compared to the standard regimen. If SBRT can be delivered with equivalent efficacy and safety, the arc-based system would be the most cost effective system.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost effectiveness; Hypofractionation; Prostate cancer; Stereotactic body radiotherapy

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24750007     DOI: 10.7785/tcrt.2012.500431

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 1533-0338


  6 in total

1.  Robot-Assisted Surgery vs Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

Authors:  Line Farah; Nicolas Magne; Nicolas Martelli; Sandrine Sotton; Marc Zerbib; Isabelle Borget; Nathaniel Scher; Thierry Guetta; Cyrus Chargari; Olivier Bauduceau; Alain Toledano
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 2.  Cost-containment in hypofractionated radiation therapy: a literature review.

Authors:  Darren Hunter; Emily Mauldon; Nigel Anderson
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2018-03-13

3.  Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Prostate Cancer in Men With a High Baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS ≥ 15).

Authors:  Nima Aghdam; Abigail Pepin; David Buchberger; Jason Hirshberg; Siyuan Lei; Marilyn Ayoob; Malika Danner; Thomas Yung; Deepak Kumar; Brian T Collins; John Lynch; Shaan Kataria; Simeng Suy; Sean P Collins
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Primary Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Gargi Kothari; Andrew Loblaw; Alison C Tree; Nicholas J van As; Drew Moghanaki; Simon S Lo; Piet Ost; Shankar Siva
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-01-01

Review 5.  A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Vladimir Avkshtol; Yanqun Dong; Shelly B Hayes; Mark A Hallman; Robert A Price; Mark L Sobczak; Eric M Horwitz; Nicholas G Zaorsky
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2016-08-18

Review 6.  Practical considerations for prostate hypofractionation in the developing world.

Authors:  Michael Yan; Andre G Gouveia; Fabio L Cury; Nikitha Moideen; Vanessa F Bratti; Horacio Patrocinio; Alejandro Berlin; Lucas C Mendez; Fabio Y Moraes
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-08-13       Impact factor: 14.432

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.