The impact of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan normalization in the postprostatectomy setting—does it matter?

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Anne Stritch ◽  
Elizabeth Forde ◽  
Michelle Leech
Author(s):  
Theodore S. Hong ◽  
Wolfgang A. Tomé ◽  
Richard J. Chappell ◽  
Prakash Chinnaiyan ◽  
Minesh P. Mehta ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Bonastre ◽  
Eric Noël ◽  
Julie Chevalier ◽  
Jean Pierre Gerard ◽  
Dimitri Lefkopoulos ◽  
...  

Objectives: The impact of learning effects on the variability of costs of new health technologies in a prospective payment system (PPS) through the case of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was studied.Methods: A series of consecutive patients treated in nine medical centers was enrolled in a prospective study. Direct costs were assessed from the perspective of the healthcare providers. We used a two-level model to explain the variability of costs: patients nested within centers. Learning effects at the center level were considered through a fixed effect (the learning curve slope) and a random effect (the initial cost level). Covariates were introduced to explain the patterns of variation in terms of patient characteristics.Results: The mean direct cost of IMRT was €5,962 (range, €2,414–€24,733). Manpower accounted for 53 percent of this cost. Learning effects explained 42 percent of the variance between centers (which was 88 percent of the total variance) and were associated with a substantial decrease in treatment costs. The mean initial treatment direct cost was €6,332 in centers with a previous experience of IMRT, whereas it was €14,192 in centers implementing IMRT for the first time. Including logistics costs and overhead, the full cost of IMRT was €10,916. Average reimbursement was €6,987.Conclusions: Learning effects are a strong confounding factor in the analysis of costs of innovative health technologies involving learning effects. In a PPS, innovative health technology involving learning effects necessitates specific reimbursement mechanisms.


2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor E. Chen ◽  
Erin F. Gillespie ◽  
Ryan P. Manger ◽  
Lauren A. Skerritt ◽  
Josephine H. Tran ◽  
...  

ISRN Urology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Xiaolong S. Liu ◽  
Joseph C. Zola ◽  
David E. McGinnis ◽  
Mehrdad Soroush ◽  
Leigh G. Bergmann ◽  
...  

Objective. As recent participants in an integrated prostate cancer (PCa) care center, we sought to evaluate whether financial investment in an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) center resulted in an increased utilization of radiation therapy in our patients with newly diagnosed PCa. Materials & Methods. Following institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the records of all consecutive patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer in the 12 months prior to and after investment in IMRT. Primary treatment modalities included active surveillance (AS), brachytherapy (BT), radiation therapy (XRT), radical prostatectomy (RP), and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Treatment data were available for all patients and were compared between the two groups. Results. A total of 344 patients with newly diagnosed PCa were evaluated over the designated time period. The pre-investment group totaled 198 patients, while 146 patients constituted the post-investment group. Among all patients evaluated, there was a similar rate in the use of XRT (20.71% versus 20.55%, ) pre- and post-investment in IMRT. Conclusions. Financial interest in IMRT by urologists does not impact overall utilization rates among patients with newly diagnosed PCa at our center.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document