Purpose: Our study aims at evaluating the cost of pulsed dose-rate (PDR) brachytherapy with optimized dose distribution versus traditional treatments (iridium wires, cesium, non-optimized PDR). Issues surrounding reimbursement were also explored.
Materials and methods: This prospective, multicentre, non-randomised study conducted in the framework of a project entitled "Support Program for Costly Diagnostic and Therapeutic Innovations" involved 21 hospitals. Patients with cervix carcinoma received either classical brachytherapy or the innovation. The direct medical costs of staff and equipment, as well as the costs of radioactive sources, consumables and building renovation were evaluated from a hospital point of view using a microcosting approach. Subsequent costs per brachytherapy were compared between the four strategies.
Results: The economic study included 463 patients over two years. The main resources categories associated with PDR brachytherapy (whether optimized or not) were radioactive sources (1053euro) and source projectors (735euro). Optimized PDR induced higher cost of imagery and dosimetry (respectively 130euro and 367euro) than non-optimized PDR (47euro and 75euro). Extra costs of innovation over the less costly strategy (iridium wires) reached more than 2100euro per treatment, but could be reduced by half in the hypothesis of 40 patients treated per year (instead of 24 in the study).
Conclusion: Aside from staff, imaging and dosimetry, the current hospital reimbursements largely underestimated the cost of innovation related to equipment and sources.
2009 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.