Evelien B van Well, Timothy N Showalter, Stavroula Giannouli, Elena Nioutsikou, Maroeska M Rovers, Tim M Govers
{"title":"The effect of one-room CT guided brachytherapy on procedure time and cost in the treatment of cervical cancer.","authors":"Evelien B van Well, Timothy N Showalter, Stavroula Giannouli, Elena Nioutsikou, Maroeska M Rovers, Tim M Govers","doi":"10.1016/j.brachy.2024.08.254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Brachytherapy is associated with improved overall survival in cervical cancer patients, but the utilization seems hindered by high costs and relatively low reimbursement, particularly in the US. A one-room brachytherapy suite with CT (ORBT) could optimize the treatment workflow. By eliminating transport and waiting times, limiting applicator movement, and providing real-time applicator placement feedback, treatment time and costs could potentially be reduced. This study assesses the potential value of implementing ORBT in cervical cancer treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>A variable cost model was developed to compare current (multi-room) brachytherapy workflows (MBRT) to ORBT, taking into account staff utilization, staff, equipment and consumables costs and room expenses. Two current care scenarios were simulated; applicator placement performed in the operating room (S1), and applicator placement performed in a brachytherapy suite (S2). For both scenarios literature reported fraction times of MBRT were compared to a range of ORBT times. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the influence of input parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In scenario one, the results showed yearly savings of $45,572 up to $339,439 (USD), assuming a 5% and 20% reduction in fraction duration, respectively, in ORBT compared to MRBT. In scenario two, ORBT does not result in costs savings at 5% to 15% improvement. Therefore, only when ORBT results in a >20% improvement of fraction time, cost will be saved.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results indicate that reducing procedure time (using ORBT) can lead to cost savings, depending on the current workflow. Savings seem to depend mostly on applicator placement location, number of patients per year, and involved personnel.</p>","PeriodicalId":93914,"journal":{"name":"Brachytherapy","volume":" ","pages":"30-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brachytherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2024.08.254","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Brachytherapy is associated with improved overall survival in cervical cancer patients, but the utilization seems hindered by high costs and relatively low reimbursement, particularly in the US. A one-room brachytherapy suite with CT (ORBT) could optimize the treatment workflow. By eliminating transport and waiting times, limiting applicator movement, and providing real-time applicator placement feedback, treatment time and costs could potentially be reduced. This study assesses the potential value of implementing ORBT in cervical cancer treatment.
Methods and materials: A variable cost model was developed to compare current (multi-room) brachytherapy workflows (MBRT) to ORBT, taking into account staff utilization, staff, equipment and consumables costs and room expenses. Two current care scenarios were simulated; applicator placement performed in the operating room (S1), and applicator placement performed in a brachytherapy suite (S2). For both scenarios literature reported fraction times of MBRT were compared to a range of ORBT times. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the influence of input parameters.
Results: In scenario one, the results showed yearly savings of $45,572 up to $339,439 (USD), assuming a 5% and 20% reduction in fraction duration, respectively, in ORBT compared to MRBT. In scenario two, ORBT does not result in costs savings at 5% to 15% improvement. Therefore, only when ORBT results in a >20% improvement of fraction time, cost will be saved.
Conclusions: The results indicate that reducing procedure time (using ORBT) can lead to cost savings, depending on the current workflow. Savings seem to depend mostly on applicator placement location, number of patients per year, and involved personnel.