4.4 Review

Radiation costing methods: a systematic review

期刊

CURRENT ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 E392-E408

出版社

MULTIMED INC
DOI: 10.3747/co.23.3073

关键词

Radiation therapy; costs; cost analyses; cost-effectiveness analyses; cost-benefit analyses

类别

资金

  1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) - Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC)
  2. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research through Government of Ontario
  3. ICES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Costs for radiation therapy (RT) and the methods used to cost RT are highly diverse across the literature. To date, no study has compared various costing methods in detail. Our objective was to perform a thorough review of the radiation costing literature to identify sources of costs and methods used. Methods A systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid HEALTHSTAR, and EconLit from 2005 to 23 March 2015 used search terms such as radiation, radiotherapy, neoplasm, cost, cost analysis, and cost benefit analysis to locate relevant articles. Original papers were reviewed for detailed costing methods. Cost sources and methods were extracted for papers investigating RT modalities, including three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), stereotactic body RT (SBRT), and brachytherapy (BT). All costs were translated into 2014 U.S. dollars. Results Most of the studies (91%) reported in the 33 articles retrieved provided RT costs from the health system perspective. The cost of RT ranged from US$2,687.87 to US$111,900.60 per treatment for IMRT, followed by US$5,583.28 to US$ 90,055 for 3D-CRT, US$10,544.22 to US$78,667.40 for BT, and US$6,520.58 to US$19,602.68 for SBRT. Cost drivers were professional or personnel costs and the cost of RT treatment. Most studies did not address the cost of RT equipment (85%) and institutional or facility costs (66%). Conclusions Costing methods and sources were widely variable across studies, highlighting the need for consistency in the reporting of RT costs. More work to promote comparability and consistency across studies is needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据