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 Linac-based single-isocenter non-coplanar technique (HyperArcTM) for brain metastases radiosurgery.

In the last few years, the major change has occurred in the expansion of indications for radiosurgery (SRS) to include patients with more than four brain metastases (BM). To address the expanding indications for SRS in the treatment of multiple BMs, HyperArcTM (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA, U.S.) was recently introduced in order to automate and simplify sophisticated treatments such as SRS/FSRT for multiple lesions (up to 20 BM). In this editorial some consideration about HyperArc cost-effectiveness were discussed in terms of reduction of treatment delivery time (multiple intracranial targets can be treated in a few minutes), the reduction of overall treatment time (treatment course of SRS of multiple BMs in a single session, rather than having to irradiate lesion per lesion during separate sessions on different days); reduction of costs for health systems. In summary HyperArc™ system is a promising, safe and accurate solution for SRS/SFRT to treat multiple BMs in a single or few sessions. This has the potential to impact direct and indirect costs of SRS/SFRT delivery.

The Nano-X Linear Accelerator: A Compact and Economical Cancer Radiotherapy System Incorporating Patient Rotation.

Rapid technological improvements in radiotherapy delivery results in improved outcomes to patients, yet current commercial systems with these technologies on board are costly. The aim of this study was to develop a state-of-the-art cancer radiotherapy system that is economical and space efficient fitting with current world demands. The Nano-X system is a compact design that is light weight combining a patient rotation system with a vertical 6 MV fixed beam. In this paper, we present the Nano-X system design configuration, an estimate of the system dimensions and its potential impact on shielding cost reductions. We provide an assessment of implementing such a radiotherapy system clinically, its advantages and disadvantages compared to a compact conventional gantry rotating linac. The Nano-X system has several differentiating features from current radiotherapy systems, it is [1] compact and therefore can fit into small vaults, [2] light weight, and [3] engineering efficient, i.e., it rotates a relatively light component and the main treatment delivery components are not under rotation (e.g., DMLCs). All these features can have an impact on reducing the costs of the system. In terms of shielding requirements, leakage radiation was found to be the dominant contributor to the Nano-X vault and as such no primary shielding was necessary. For a low leakage design, the Nano-X vault footprint and concrete volume required is 17 m2 and 35 m3 respectively, compared to 54 m2 and 102 m3 for a conventional compact linac vault, resulting in decreased costs in shielding. Key issues to be investigated in future work are the possible patient comfort concerns associated with the patient rotation system, as well as the magnitude of deformation and subsequent adaptation requirements.

Linear accelerator: a reproducible, efficacious and cost effective alternative for blood irradiation.

BACKGROUND: The dedicated devices for blood irradiation are available only at a few centers in developing countries thus the irradiation remains a service with limited availability due to prohibitive cost. OBJECTIVE: To implement a blood irradiation program at our center using linear accelerator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is performed detailing the specific operational and quality assurance measures employed in providing a blood component-irradiation service at tertiary care hospital. X-rays generated from linear accelerator were used to irradiate the blood components. To facilitate and standardize the blood component irradiation, a blood irradiator box was designed and fabricated in acrylic. Using Elekta Precise Linear Accelerator, a dose of 25 Gy was delivered at the centre of the irradiation box. Standardization was done using five units of blood obtained from healthy voluntary blood donors. Each unit was divided to two parts. One aliquot was subjected to irradiation. Biochemical and hematological parameters were analyzed on various days of storage. Cost incurred was analyzed. RESULTS: Progressive increase in plasma hemoglobin, potassium and lactate dehydrogenase was noted in the irradiated units but all the parameters were within the acceptable range indicating the suitability of the product for transfusion. The irradiation process was completed in less than 30 min. Validation of the radiation dose done using TLD showed less than ± 3% variation. CONCLUSION: This study shows that that the blood component irradiation is within the scope of most of the hospitals in developing countries even in the absence of dedicated blood irradiators at affordable cost.

Implementation of a new cost efficacy method for blood irradiation using a non dedicated device.

OBJECTIVES: To implement a new cost efficacy internal Service for blood component irradiation, we carried out specific procedures and quality assurance reports using the linear accelerators (LINACs) of the Regina Elena Institute (IRE) Radiotherapy Department instead of a dedicated device. METHODS: The technical aspects, quality assurance and regulatory requirements of the internal procedure to set up a local irradiated blood bank have been defined. The LINACs of the IRE Radiotherapy Department were used to deliver a mean dose of 32 Gy and dose accuracy was checked with gafchromic film. The overall time/cost of this procedure was compared with the previous procedure, out-sourcing the irradiation of blood components. RESULTS: A total of 1996 blood component units were internally irradiated in the first year. Moreover, reducing the overall procedure time by a third. Overall cost/bag of external and internal procedures was approx. 66 € and 11 €, respectively. Thus the average saving of cost/bag was higher than 80%. The use of gafchromic films in all irradiated blood component bags allowed the accuracy of the dose delivered to blood to be checked. CONCLUSIONS: By utilizing LINACs installed in the Radiotherapy Department it is possible to provide an internal blood component irradiation service, capitalizing on internal resources without any inconvenience/discomfort to patients undergoing radiotherapy and satisfying governmental regulatory requirements. The internal irradiation procedures has proven to be safe and feasible, and along with the significant cost/time reduction suggests that it is more advantageous than external procedures.

A microcosting study of microsurgery, LINAC radiosurgery, and gamma knife radiosurgery in meningioma patients.

The aim of the present study is to determine and compare initial treatment costs of microsurgery, linear accelerator (LINAC) radiosurgery, and gamma knife radiosurgery in meningioma patients. Additionally, the follow-up costs in the first year after initial treatment were assessed. Cost analyses were performed at two neurosurgical departments in The Netherlands from the healthcare providers' perspective. A total of 59 patients were included, of whom 18 underwent microsurgery, 15 underwent LINAC radiosurgery, and 26 underwent gamma knife radiosurgery. A standardized microcosting methodology was employed to ensure that the identified cost differences would reflect only actual cost differences. Initial treatment costs, using equipment costs per fraction, were 12,288 for microsurgery, 1,547 for LINAC radiosurgery, and 2,412 for gamma knife radiosurgery. Higher initial treatment costs for microsurgery were predominantly due to inpatient stay (5,321) and indirect costs (4,350). LINAC and gamma knife radiosurgery were equally expensive when equipment was valued per treatment (2,198 and 2,412, respectively). Follow-up costs were slightly, but not significantly, higher for microsurgery compared with LINAC and gamma knife radiosurgery. Even though initial treatment costs were over five times higher for microsurgery compared with both radiosurgical treatments, our study gives indications that the relative cost difference may decrease when follow-up costs occurring during the first year after initial treatment are incorporated. This reinforces the need to consider follow-up costs after initial treatment when examining the relative costs of alternative treatments.

[Protontherapy: basis, indications and new technologies]. / La protonthérapie : bases, indications et nouvelles technologies.

With over 70,000 patients treated worldwide, protontherapy has an evolution on their clinical applications and technological developments. The ballistic advantage of the Bragg peak gives the possibility of getting a high conformation of the dose distribution to the target volume. Protontherapy has accumulated a considerable experience in the management of selected rare malignancies such as uveal melanomas and base of the skull chordomas and chondrosarcomas. The growing interest for exploring new and more common conditions, such as prostate, lung, liver, ENT, breast carcinomas, as well as the implementation of large pediatric programs advocated by many experts has been challenged up to now by the limited access to operational proton facilities, and by the relatively slow pace of technical developments in terms of ion production, beam shaping and modelling, on-line verification etc. One challenge today is to deliver dynamic techniques with intensity modulation in clinical facilities as a standard treatment. We concentrate in this paper on the evolution of clinical indications as well as the potentialities of new technological concepts on ion production, such as dielectric walls and laser-plasma interactions. While these concepts could sooner or later translate into prototypes of highly compact equipments that would make easier the implantation of cost-effective hospital-based facilities, the feasibility of their clinical use must still be proved.

A 'Catch Up' Plan for radiotherapy in New South Wales to 2012.

In New South Wales (NSW) from 1996 to 2006, only 34-37% of newly diagnosed cancer patients were treated with radiotherapy instead of the 50% proposed by NSW Health in Radiotherapy Plans released in 1991, 1995 and 2003. As a consequence, over 50 000 cancer patients were not treated and has resulted in the estimated premature death of over 8000 patients and over 40 000 years of life lost. In 2008, there were 42 linear accelerators in NSW rather than the 62 recommended. Based on cancer incidence projections, NSW will require 69 linear accelerators in 2012--a shortfall of 27 linear accelerators. Already 15 linear accelerators have been approved. NSW Health has funding for seven extra linear accelerators, and eight extra linear accelerators are to be funded by the private sector. To make up the shortfall, a 'Catch Up' Plan is proposed for an additional 12 linear accelerators by the end of fiscal year 2012. This is estimated to cost $200 million over 4 years for one-off establishment costs for buildings and equipment plus $50 million per year for recurrent operating costs such as staff salaries. The 'Catch Up' Plan will create five new departments of radiation oncology in country hospitals and three new departments in metropolitan hospitals. These will be in addition to those already approved by NSW Health and will markedly improve access for treatment and result in an improvement in cancer survival. This significant increase in departments and equipment can only be achieved by the creation of an NSW Radiotherapy Taskforce similar to that proposed in the Baume report of 2002, 'A vision for radiotherapy'. Even if the 'Catch Up' Plan bridges the gap in service provision, forward planning beyond 2012 should commence immediately as 76 linear accelerators will be required for NSW in 2015 and 81 linear accelerators in 2017.

Cost analysis of radiotherapy, carbon ion therapy, proton therapy and BNCT in Japan.

The purpose of this study was to estimate the financial costs to start BNCT as a clinical treatment in a hospital. To evaluate more accurate data on the precise costs of BNCT, we analyzed the costs of conventional radiotherapy, carbon ion and proton therapy and compare them to BNCT. An aggregate cost calculation of accelerator, buildings, equipments and staff requirements was performed.

Multinational assessment of some operational costs of teletherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Decisions in planning radiotherapy facilities in countries with limited financial resources require information on economic factors to make provision for sustainability. This study aims at acquiring data on some of these factors involved in delivery of teletherapy in 11 countries of different economic status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Representatives of three European, one African, three Latin American and four Asian countries, were identified from radiation oncology institutions that operated both cobalt and linac teletherapy machines. Productivity data were prospectively collected for the year 2002. A detailed log was recorded for each machine over an arbitrary two-week period. Data on quality assurance (QA), maintenance, the capital costs of each machine, and the source replacement costs for the cobalt units were also recorded. RESULTS: Both linear accelerators and cobalt machines treat more than 10,000 fractions per year per machine with 2.5 and 2.3 fields per fraction, respectively. The capital costs of the machines vary considerably, with a factor of more than 10 for linear accelerators. Cobalt sources show a huge variation in price. The median costs of QA and maintenance of a linac was US$ 41,000 compared to US$ 6000 for cobalt machines. This results for the economic factors considered in median costs per fraction of US$ 11.02 for linear accelerators and US$ 4.87 for cobalt machines. These figures do not include the costs for physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The variation of the costs per fraction is more due to the result of differences in machine usage and costs of equipment than of national economic status. A treatment fraction on a linac with functionality comparable to cobalt, costs 50% more than cobalt therapy. This project shows that it is possible to collect data on economic factors prospectively as well as retrospectively.

Accelerator-based epithermal neutron sources for boron neutron capture therapy of brain tumors.

This paper reviews the development of low-energy light ion accelerator-based neutron sources (ABNSs) for the treatment of brain tumors through an intact scalp and skull using boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT). A major advantage of an ABNS for BNCT over reactor-based neutron sources is the potential for siting within a hospital. Consequently, light-ion accelerators that are injectors to larger machines in high-energy physics facilities are not considered. An ABNS for BNCT is composed of: (1) the accelerator hardware for producing a high current charged particle beam, (2) an appropriate neutron-producing target and target heat removal system (HRS), and (3) a moderator/reflector assembly to render the flux energy spectrum of neutrons produced in the target suitable for patient irradiation. As a consequence of the efforts of researchers throughout the world, progress has been made on the design, manufacture, and testing of these three major components. Although an ABNS facility has not yet been built that has optimally assembled these three components, the feasibility of clinically useful ABNSs has been clearly established. Both electrostatic and radio frequency linear accelerators of reasonable cost (approximately 1.5 M dollars) appear to be capable of producing charged particle beams, with combinations of accelerated particle energy (a few MeV) and beam currents (approximately 10 mA) that are suitable for a hospital-based ABNS for BNCT. The specific accelerator performance requirements depend upon the charged particle reaction by which neutrons are produced in the target and the clinical requirements for neutron field quality and intensity. The accelerator performance requirements are more demanding for beryllium than for lithium as a target. However, beryllium targets are more easily cooled. The accelerator performance requirements are also more demanding for greater neutron field quality and intensity. Target HRSs that are based on submerged-jet impingement and the use of microchannels have emerged as viable target cooling options. Neutron fields for reactor-based neutron sources provide an obvious basis of comparison for ABNS field quality. This paper compares Monte Carlo calculations of neutron field quality for an ABNS and an idealized standard reactor neutron field (ISRNF). The comparison shows that with lithium as a target, an ABNS can create a neutron field with a field quality that is significantly better (by a factor of approximately 1.2, as judged by the relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-dose that can be delivered to a tumor at a depth of 6cm) than that for the ISRNF. Also, for a beam current of 10 mA, the treatment time is calculated to be reasonable (approximately 30 min) for the boron concentrations that have been assumed.

High-power CW LINAC for food irradiation.

The continuing high profile food poisoning incidents are beginning to attract food processors using electron and gamma-ray sterilization technologies. The present method of choice uses radioactive isotopes but high-power electron particle accelerators are proving an increasingly attractive alternative. We are developing a family of compact industrial continuous wave linear accelerators which produce electrons with energies from 600 keV in increments of approximately 600 keV and with beam power of 30 kW increasing in increments of 30 kW. Here, we describe the performance of our 1st section that accelerates 15 keV gun electrons to relativistic energies and then we sketch the design of the less demanding subsequent sections that we are now constructing.

Cost-minimization analysis: radiation treatment with and without a multi-leaf collimator.

PURPOSE: To compare the costs of radiation treatment on a linear accelerator with a multileaf collimator (MLC) versus treatment on a linear accelerator without an MLC. The study was designed to determine whether the increased throughput of fields and decreased block cutting made the MLC cost effective from an institutional perspective. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The number of fields, basic treatment equivalent, equivalent simple treatment visits, and blocks were prospectively collected for the four linear accelerators. Building, equipment, staffing, and service costs were all obtained in 1999 Australian dollars from the manufacturers and hospital department heads. The Joint Radiation Oncology Centre at Westmead and Nepean Hospitals, which are Australian public hospitals, runs as one unit, with the same staff, and currently operates five linear accelerators. Currently, four of the linear accelerators are used for general radiotherapy, operating for exactly the same hours; the final machine operates more limited hours and is used for specialized radiotherapy techniques and emergency cases. RESULTS: The two machines with MLCs, on average, treated 5,169 fields each, while the two machines without MLCs treated 4,543 fields in a 3-month period, a 12% increase in throughput. The two non-MLC machines required 155 premounted trays (PMTs) in total, while the MLC machines required 17 PMTs. Linear accelerators with MLCs were demonstrably more efficient, and while their capital costs were higher, the reduction in labor costs associated with block cutting and, particularly the increased throughput, more than offset these initial costs. The total cost of a radiation field with an MLC was found to be $A101.69 compared to $A106.98 without an MLC. A multiway sensitivity analysis showed the results to be robust. The worst-case scenario was a departmental savings of $A168,000 per year; the best-case scenario was a savings of $A680,000 per year. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions pertaining to the radiation oncology department in this group of hospitals, and in similar departments, the use of an MLC can be justified.

Cost effectiveness of linear accelerators.

Cost analysis of radiation therapy and cost benefit analysis of Co60 versus linear accelerator therapy are useful exercises for radiation therapy departments. Such analysis will show that the costs of radiation therapy are significant. However, the cost benefit is most likely to be seen where survival is increased and morbidity is decreased. In centers where there is a high population of patients treated for palliation, the cost benefit is unlikely to be realized.