You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Current Oncology
  • Current Oncology is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Multimed Inc..
  • Article
  • Open Access

1 August 2016

Radiation Costing Methods: A Systematic Review

,
,
,
,
and
1
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
2
Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomics (hope) Research Centre, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
3
Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
4
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Abstract

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$2687.87 to US$111,900.60 per treatment for imrt, followed by US$5583.28 to US$90,055 for 3D-crt, US$10,544.22 to US$78,667.40 for bt, and US$6520.58 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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.