Estimating the cost of radiotherapy for 5-year local control and overall survival benefit.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Escalating health care costs have led to greater efforts directed at measuring the cost and benefits of medical treatments. The aim of this study was to estimate the costs of 5-year local control and overall survival benefits of radiotherapy for the cancer population in Australia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The local control and overall survival benefits of radiotherapy at 5-years and optimal number of fractions per course have been estimated for 26 tumour sites for which radiotherapy is indicated. For this study, a hybrid approach that merges features from activity based costing (ABC) and relative value units costing (RVU) were used to provide cost estimates. ABC methodology was used to allocate costs to all radiotherapy activities associated with each patient's treatment course, while the RVUs represent the cost of each radiotherapy activity relative to the average cost of all activities and were used to achieve a weighted cost allocation. A patient's journey for the financial year was constructed by consolidating all the radiotherapy activities and their associated costs, and the average cost per activity (fraction) was determined. The cost of radiotherapy per 5-year overall survival and local control was then estimated. RESULTS: The estimated population 5-year local control and overall survival benefits of radiotherapy for all cancer were 23% and 6%, respectively. The optimal number of fractions per treatment course if guidelines were followed was 19.4 fractions. The average cost per fraction for all cancer was AU$276. The estimated cost of radiotherapy was AU$23,585 per 5-year local control and AU$86,480 per 5-year overall survival (equivalent to 5 life years) for all cancer. CONCLUSION: The cost of AU$86,480 per 5-year overall survival would translate to AU$17,296 1-year overall survival. Therefore, the cost of radiotherapy is inexpensive if delivered optimally. Policy implications from this study include knowledge about cost to deliver radiotherapy to allow one to quantify the expected benefit at a population level.

The integration of MRI in radiation therapy: collaboration of radiographers and radiation therapists.

The increased utilisation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiation therapy (RT) has led to the implementation of MRI simulators for RT treatment planning and influenced the development of MRI-guided treatment systems. There is extensive literature on the advantages of MRI for tumour volume and organ-at-risk delineation compared to computed tomography. MRI provides both anatomical and functional information for RT treatment planning (RTP) as well as quantitative information to assess tumour response for adaptive treatment. Despite many advantages of MRI in RT, introducing an MRI simulator into a RT department is a challenge. Collaboration between radiographers and radiation therapists is paramount in making the best use of this technology. The cross-disciplinary training of radiographers and radiation therapists alike is an area rarely discussed; however, it is becoming an important requirement due to detailed imaging needs for advanced RT treatment techniques and with the emergence of hybrid treatment systems. This article will discuss the initial experiences of a radiation oncology department in implementing a dedicated MRI simulator for RTP, with a focus on the training required for both radiographer and RT staff. It will also address the future of MRI in RT and the implementation of MRI-guided treatment systems, such as MRI-Linacs, and the role of both radiation therapists and radiographers in this technology.

The use of categorized time-trend reporting of radiation oncology incidents: a proactive analytical approach to improving quality and safety over time.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is a common treatment for cancer patients. Although incidence of error is low, errors can be severe or affect significant numbers of patients. In addition, errors will often not manifest until long periods after treatment. This study describes the development of an incident reporting tool that allows categorical analysis and time trend reporting, covering first 3 years of use. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A radiotherapy-specific incident analysis system was established. Staff members were encouraged to report actual errors and near-miss events detected at prescription, simulation, planning, or treatment phases of radiotherapy delivery. Trend reporting was reviewed monthly. RESULTS: Reports were analyzed for the first 3 years of operation (May 2004-2007). A total of 688 reports was received during the study period. The actual error rate was 0.2% per treatment episode. During the study period, the actual error rates reduced significantly from 1% per year to 0.3% per year (p < 0.001), as did the total event report rates (p < 0.0001). There were 3.5 times as many near misses reported compared with actual errors. CONCLUSIONS: This system has allowed real-time analysis of events within a radiation oncology department to a reduced error rate through focus on learning and prevention from the near-miss reports. Plans are underway to develop this reporting tool for Australia and New Zealand.