A comparative study using time-driven activity-based costing in single-fraction breast high-dose rate brachytherapy: An integrated brachytherapy suite vs. decentralized workflow.

INTRODUCTION: Precision breast intraoperative radiation therapy (PB-IORT) is a novel approach to adjuvant radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer performed as part of a phase II clinical trial at two institutions. One institution performs the entire procedure in an integrated brachytherapy suite which contains a CT-on-rails imaging unit and full anesthesia capabilities. At the other, breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy take place in two separate locations. Here, we utilize time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to compare these two models for the delivery of PB-IORT. METHODS: Process maps were created to describe each step required to deliver PB-IORT at each institution, including personnel, equipment, and supplies. Time investment was estimated for each step. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource, and total costs of care were then calculated by multiplying the capacity cost rates by the time estimate for the process step and adding any additional product costs. RESULTS: PB-IORT costs less to deliver at a distributed facility, as is more commonly available, than an integrated brachytherapy suite ($3,262.22 vs. $3,996.01). The largest source of costs in both settings ($2,400) was consumable supplies, including the brachytherapy balloon applicator. The difference in costs for the two facility types was driven by personnel costs ($1,263.41 vs. $764.89). In the integrated facility, increased time required by radiation oncology nursing and the anesthesia attending translated to the greatest increases in cost. Equipment costs were also slightly higher in the integrated suite setting ($332.60 vs. $97.33). CONCLUSIONS: The overall cost of care is higher when utilizing an integrated brachytherapy suite to deliver PB-IORT. This was primarily driven by additional personnel costs from nursing and anesthesia, although the greatest cost of delivery in both settings was the disposable brachytherapy applicator. These differences in cost must be balanced against the potential impact on patient experience with these approaches.

Time-driven activity-based costing of a novel form of CT-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy intraoperative radiation therapy compared with conventional breast intraoperative radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative radiation therapy is an emerging option for adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer, although it is not currently considered standard of care in the United States. We applied time-driven activity-based costing to compare two alternative methods of breast intraoperative radiation therapy, including treatment similar to the techniques employed in the TARGIT-A clinical trial and a novel version with CT-guidance and high-dose-rate (HRD) brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to describe the steps required to deliver intraoperative radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer at each institution. The components of intraoperative radiation therapy included personnel, equipment, and consumable supplies. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource. Based on this, the delivery costs were calculated for each regimen. For comparison across centers, we did not account for indirect facilities costs and interinstitutional differences in personnel salaries. RESULTS: The CT-guided, HRD form of intraoperative radiation therapy costs more to deliver ($4,126.21) than the conventional method studied in the TARGIT-A trial ($1,070.45). The cost of the brachytherapy balloon applicator ($2,750) was the primary driver of the estimated differences in costs. Consumable supplies were the largest contributor to the brachytherapy-based approach, whereas personnel costs were the largest contributor to costs of the standard form of intraoperative radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the more established method of intraoperative radiation therapy using a portable superficial photon unit, the delivery of treatment with CT guidance and HDR brachytherapy is associated with substantially higher costs. The excess costs are driven primarily by the cost of the disposable brachytherapy balloon applicator and, to a lesser extent, additional personnel costs. Future work should include evaluation of a less expensive brachytherapy applicator to increase the anticipated value of brachytherapy-based intraoperative radiation therapy.

Time-driven activity-based costing of adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy for uterine cancer in an integrated brachytherapy suite.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy is well tolerated and reduces the risk of local recurrence in endometrial cancer. However, there is provider variation in the number of radiation treatments, which ranges from three to six fractions. Using time-driven activity-based costing, we calculated the cost to deliver three vs six fractions to determine the value of each regimen at our brachytherapy suite with CT-on-rails. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to represent each step from initial consult to completion of therapy. Components of care included personnel, equipment, and consumable supplies. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource and calculated for each regimen. RESULTS: The total direct costs to deliver three- and six-fraction treatment courses were $1,415 and $2,227, respectively. Personnel cost accounted for 63% of overall expenditures. Computed tomography simulation and planning, required for the first fraction, cost $232 for both regimens. Duties of the procedural nurse (scheduling, patient setup, and turnover) consumed the most time at 35% of total personnel minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based cost analysis revealed a 57% relative increase, but modest absolute increase, in delivery costs for six vs three fractions of brachytherapy at our institution. This current analysis may influence considerations of the relative value between the two treatment schedules, but this methodology should not be interpreted as informative for reimbursement policy evaluation.