Cost of cardiac stereotactic body radioablation therapy versus catheter ablation for treatment of ventricular tachycardia.

AIMS: To compare the cost of cardiac stereotactic body radioablation therapy (SBRT) versus catheter ablation for treating ventricular tachycardia (VT). BACKGROUND: Cardiac SBRT is a novel way of treating refractory VT that may be less costly than catheter ablation, owing to its noninvasive, outpatient nature. However, the true costs of either procedure are not well described, which could help inform a more appropriate reimbursement for cardiac SBRT than simply cross-indexing existing procedural rates. METHODS: Process maps were derived for the full patient care cycle of both procedures using time-driven activity-based costing. Step-by-step timestamps were collected prospectively from a 10-patient SBRT cohort and retrospectively from a 59-patient catheter ablation cohort. Individual costs were estimated by multiplying timestamps with capacity cost rates (CCRs) for personnel, space, equipment, consumable, and indirect resources. These were summed into total cost, which for cardiac SBRT was compared with current catheter ablation and single-fraction lung SBRT reimbursements, both potential reference rates for cardiac SBRT. RESULTS: The direct and total procedural costs of cardiac SBRT ($7549 and $10,621) were 49% and 54% less than those of VT ablation ($14,707 and $23,225). These costs were significantly different from current reimbursement for catheter ablation ($22,692) and lung SBRT ($6329). After including hospitalization expenses (≥$15,000), VT ablation costs at least $27,604 more to furnish than cardiac SBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) can be a helpful tool for assessing healthcare costs, including novel treatment approaches. In addition to its clinical benefits, cardiac SBRT may provide significant cost reduction opportunities for treatment of VT.

Treating the SARS-CoV-2-positive patient with cancer: A proposal for a pragmatic and transparent ethical process.

The treatment of patients with cancer who test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses unique challenges. In this commentary, the authors describe the ethical rationale and implementation details for the creation of a novel, multidisciplinary treatment prioritization committee, including physicians, frontline staff, an ethicist, and an infectious disease expert. Organizational obligations to health care workers also are discussed. The treatment prioritization committee sets a threshold of acceptable harm to patients from decreased cancer control that is justified to reduce risk to staff. The creation of an ethical, consistent, and transparent decision-making process involving such frontline stakeholders is essential as departments across the country are faced with decisions regarding the treatment of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with cancer.

Technological advancements and error rates in radiation therapy delivery.

PURPOSE: Technological advances in radiation therapy (RT) delivery have the potential to reduce errors via increased automation and built-in quality assurance (QA) safeguards, yet may also introduce new types of errors. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) is an increasingly used technology that is more technically complex than three-dimensional (3D)-conformal RT and conventional RT. We determined the rate of reported errors in RT delivery among IMRT and 3D/conventional RT treatments and characterized the errors associated with the respective techniques to improve existing QA processes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All errors in external beam RT delivery were prospectively recorded via a nonpunitive error-reporting system at Brigham & Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Errors are defined as any unplanned deviation from the intended RT treatment and are reviewed during monthly departmental quality improvement meetings. We analyzed all reported errors since the routine use of IMRT in our department, from January 2004 to July 2009. Fisher's exact test was used to determine the association between treatment technique (IMRT vs. 3D/conventional) and specific error types. Effect estimates were computed using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 155 errors in RT delivery among 241,546 fractions (0.06%), and none were clinically significant. IMRT was commonly associated with errors in machine parameters (nine of 19 errors) and data entry and interpretation (six of 19 errors). IMRT was associated with a lower rate of reported errors compared with 3D/conventional RT (0.03% vs. 0.07%, p = 0.001) and specifically fewer accessory errors (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.78) and setup errors (odds ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of errors in RT delivery is low. The types of errors differ significantly between IMRT and 3D/conventional RT, suggesting that QA processes must be uniquely adapted for each technique. There was a lower error rate with IMRT compared with 3D/conventional RT, highlighting the need for sustained vigilance against errors common to more traditional treatment techniques.

A prospective evaluation of rectal bleeding after dose-escalated three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy using an intrarectal balloon for prostate gland localization and immobilization.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the rates of rectal bleeding after dose-escalated three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) on a prospective, Phase II study in which a modified intrarectal balloon was used for prostate gland localization and immobilization. METHODS: The study cohort comprised 100 men with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the prostate and at least one high-risk feature (prostate-specific antigen level greater than 10 ng/mL, Gleason score 7 or higher, or clinical or radiographic T3 disease). Treatment consisted of androgen suppression therapy and four-field 3D-CRT with an intrarectal balloon for the initial 15 treatments. Planning treatment volume dose was 75.6 Gy. The primary endpoint of time to grade 3 rectal bleeding was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method for 57 men with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. RESULTS: For 57 men with a median (range) follow-up of 1.8 (1.0 to 3.3) years, the median (range) volume of rectum exceeding 70 Gy was 3.7 (0.6 to 14.7) cm3, and the 2-year estimate of grade 3 rectal bleeding rate was 10%. This rate was 100% as compared with 0 (P < 0.0001) for men who were taking warfarin (n = 3) or high-dose aspirin (n = 1) as compared with neither, respectively. All grade 3 rectal bleeding events were controlled with argon plasma coagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated 3D-CRT with an intrarectal balloon technique for prostate localization and immobilization produced no measurable grade 3 rectal bleeding unless the patient was taking anticoagulants.