Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing of CT-Guided vs MR-Guided Prostate SBRT.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a standard-of-care option for localized prostate cancer. While prostate SBRT has traditionally been delivered using computed-tomography-guided radiation therapy (CTgRT), MR-imaging-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) is now available. MRgRT offers real-time soft-tissue visualization and ease of adaptive planning, obviating the need for fiducial markers, and potentially allowing for smaller planning target volume (PTV) margins. Although prior studies have focused on evaluating the cost-effectiveness of MRgRT vs CTgRT from a payor perspective, the difference in provider costs to deliver such treatments remains unknown. This study thus used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to determine the difference in provider resources consumed by delivering prostate SBRT via MRgRT vs CTgRT. METHODS: Data was collected from a single academic institution where prostate SBRT is routinely performed using both CTgRT and MRgRT. Five-fraction SBRT (40 Gy total dose) was assumed to be delivered through volumetric-modulated arc therapy for CTgRT patients, and through step-and-shoot, fixed-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy for MRgRT patients. Process maps were constructed for each portion of the radiation delivery process via interviews/surveys with departmental personnel and by measuring CTgRT and MRgRT treatment times. Prior to simulation, only CTgRT patients underwent placement of three gold fiducial markers. Personnel capacity cost rates were calculated by dividing total personnel costs by the annual minutes worked by a given personnel. Equipment costs included both an annualized purchase price and annual maintenance costs. Ultimately, the total costs of care encompassing personnel, space/equipment, and materials were aggregated across the entire chain of care for both CTgRT and MRgRT patients in a base case. RESULTS: Direct costs associated with delivering a 5-fraction course of prostate SBRT were $1,497 higher with MRgRT than with CTgRT - comprised of personnel costs ($210 higher with MRgRT), space/equipment ($1,542 higher with MRgRT), and materials ($255 higher with CTgRT). Only CTgRT patients underwent fiducial placement, which accounted for $591. MRgRT patients were assumed to undergo both CT simulation (for electron density calculation) and MRI simulation, with the former accounting for $168. Mean time spent by patients in the treatment vault per fraction was 20 minutes (range 15-26 minutes) for CTgRT, and 31 minutes (range 30-34 minutes) for MRgRT. Patient time spent during fiducial placement (CTgRT only) was 60 minutes. Modifying the number of fractions treated would result in the cost difference of $1,497 (5 fractions) changing to $441 (1 fraction) or to $2,025 (7 fractions). CONCLUSION: This study provides an approximate comparison of the direct resources required for a radiation oncology provider to deliver prostate SBRT with CTgRT vs MRgRT. We await findings from the currently accruing phase III MIRAGE trial, which is comparing these modalities, and will subsequently measure acute and late genitourinary/gastrointestinal (GU/GI) toxicities, temporal change in quality-of-life outcomes, and 5-year biochemical, recurrence-free survival. Results from studies comparing the efficacy and safety of MRgRT vs CTgRT will ultimately allow us to put this cost difference into context.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis of Telemedicine Services in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Health systems have increased telemedicine use during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak to limit in-person contact. We used time-driven activity-based costing to evaluate the change in resource use associated with transitioning to telemedicine in a radiation oncology department. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using a patient undergoing 28-fraction treatment as an example, process maps for traditional in-person and telemedicine-based workflows consisting of discrete steps were created. Physicians/physicists/dosimetrists and nurses were assumed to work remotely 3 days and 1 day per week, respectively. Mapping was informed by interviews and surveys of personnel, with cost estimates obtained from the department's financial officer. RESULTS: Transitioning to telemedicine reduced provider costs by $586 compared with traditional workflow: $47 at consultation, $280 during treatment planning, $237 during on-treatment visits, and $22 during the follow-up visit. Overall, cost savings were $347 for space/equipment and $239 for personnel. From an employee perspective, the total amount saved each year by not commuting was $36,718 for physicians (7243 minutes), $19,380 for physicists (7243 minutes), $17,286 for dosimetrists (7210 minutes), and $5599 for nurses (2249 minutes). Patients saved $170 per treatment course. CONCLUSIONS: A modified workflow incorporating telemedicine visits and work-from-home capability conferred savings to a department as well as significant time and costs to health care workers and patients alike.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Comparison of Stereotactic Radiosurgery to Multiple Brain Lesions Using Single-Isocenter Versus Multiple-Isocenter Technique.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) historically has been used to treat multiple brain lesions using a multiple-isocenter technique-frequently associated with significant complexity in treatment planning and long treatment times. Recently, given innovations in planning algorithms, patients with multiple brain lesions may now be treated with a single-isocenter technique using fewer total arcs and less time spent during image guidance (though with stricter image guided radiation therapy tolerances). This study used time-driven activity-based costing to determine the difference in cost to a provider for delivering SRS to multiple brain lesions using single-isocenter versus multiple-isocenter techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps, consisting of discrete steps, were created for each phase of the SRS care cycle and were based on interviews with department personnel. Actual treatment times (including image guidance) were extracted from treatment record and verify software. Additional sources of data to determine costs included salary/benefit data of personnel and average list price/maintenance costs for equipment. RESULTS: Data were collected for 22 patients who underwent single-isocenter SRS (mean lesions treated, 5.2; mean treatment time, 30.2 minutes) and 51 patients who underwent multiple-isocenter SRS (mean lesions treated, 4.4; mean treatment time, 75.2 minutes). Treatment time for multiple-isocenter SRS varied substantially with increasing number of lesions (11.8 minutes/lesion; P < .001), but to a much lesser degree in single-isocenter SRS (1.8 minutes/lesion; P = .029). The resulting cost savings from single-isocenter SRS based on number of lesions treated ranged from $296 to $3878 for 2 to 10 lesions treated. The 2-mm planning treatment volume margin used with single-isocenter SRS resulted in a mean 43% increase of total volume treated compared with a 1-mm planning treatment volume expansion. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of time-driven activity-based costing assessment of single-isocenter versus multiple-isocenter SRS for multiple brain lesions, single-isocenter SRS appears to save time and resources for as few as 2 lesions, with incremental benefits for additional lesions treated.

Cost-Effectiveness of Metastasis-Directed Therapy in Oligorecurrent Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Oligorecurrent prostate cancer has historically been treated with indefinite androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), although many patients and providers opt to defer this treatment at the time of recurrence given quality-of-life and/or comorbidity considerations. Recently, metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has emerged as a potential intermediary between surveillance and immediate continuous ADT. Simultaneously, advanced systemic therapy in addition to ADT has also been shown to improve survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating oligorecurrent patients with upfront MDT before standard-of-care systemic therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov-based cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed comparing 3 strategies: (1) upfront MDT → salvage abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; (2) upfront AAP + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; and (3) upfront docetaxel + ADT → salvage AAP + ADT. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from the literature. Using a 10-year time horizon and willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit values were subsequently calculated for each treatment strategy. RESULTS: At 10 years, the base case revealed a total cost of $141,148, $166,807, and $136,154 with QALYs of 4.63, 4.89, and 4.00, respectively, reflecting a net monetary benefit of $322,240, $322,018, and $263,407 for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation (1,000,000 simulations), upfront MDT was the cost-effective strategy in 53.6% of simulations. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed 95% confidence intervals for cost ($75,914-$179,862, $124,431-$223,892, and $103,298-$180,617) and utility in QALYs (3.85-6.12, 3.91-5.86, and 3.02-5.22) for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, upfront MDT followed by salvage AAP + ADT, is comparably cost-effective compared with upfront standard-of-care systemic therapy and may be considered a viable treatment strategy, especially in patients wishing to defer systemic therapy for quality-of-life or comorbidity concerns. Additional studies are needed to determine whether MDT causes a sustained meaningful delay in disease natural history and whether any benefit exists in combining MDT with upfront advanced systemic therapy.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Comparison of CT-Guided Versus MR-Guided SBRT.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) has recently become commercially available, offering the opportunity to accurately image and target moving tumors as compared with computed tomography-guided radiation therapy (CTgRT) systems. However, the costs of delivering care with these 2 modalities remain poorly described. With localized unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma as an example, we were able to use time-driven activity-based costing to determine the cost of treatment on linear accelerators with CTgRT compared with MRgRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Process maps, informed via interviews with departmental personnel, were created for each phase of the care cycle. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was delivered at 50 Gy in 5 fractions, either with CTgRT using fiducial placement, deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) with real-time position management, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy, or with MRgRT using real-time tumor gating, DIBH, and static-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy. RESULTS: Direct clinical costs were $7,306 for CTgRT and $8,622 for MRgRT comprising personnel costs ($3,752 v $3,603), space and equipment costs ($2,912 v $4,769), and materials costs ($642 v $250). Increased MRgRT costs may be mitigated by forgoing CT simulation ($322 saved) or shortening treatment to 3 fractions ($1,815 saved). Conversely, adaptive treatment with MRgRT would result in an increase in cost of $529 per adaptive treatment. CONCLUSION: MRgRT offers real-time image guidance, avoidance of fiducial placement, and ability to use adaptive treatments; however, it is 18% more expensive than CTgRT under baseline assumptions. Future studies that elucidate the magnitude of potential clinical benefits of MRgRT are warranted to clarify the value of using this technology.