Stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy cost-effectiveness results

38Citations
Citations of this article
135Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To describe and synthesize the current stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) cost-effectiveness research to date across several common SRS and SBRT applications. Methods: This review was limited to comparative economic evaluations of SRS, SBRT, and alternative treatments (e.g., other radiotherapy techniques or surgery). Based on PubMed searches using the terms, "stereotactic," "SRS," "stereotactic radiotherapy," "stereotactic body radiotherapy," "SBRT," "stereotactic ablative radiotherapy," "economic evaluation," "quality adjusted life year (QALY)," "cost," "cost-effectiveness," "cost-utility," and "cost analysis," published studies of cost-effectiveness and health economics were obtained. Included were articles in peer-reviewed journals that presented a comparison of costs between treatment alternatives from January 1997 to November 2012. Papers were excluded if they did not present cost calculations, therapeutic cost comparisons, or health economic endpoints. Results: Clinical outcomes and costs of SRS and SBRT were compared to other therapies for treatment of cancer in the brain, spine, lung, prostate, and pancreas. Treatment outcomes for SRS and SBRT are usually superior or comparable, and cost-effective, relative to alternative techniques. Conclusion: Based on the review of current SRS and SBRT clinical and health economic literature, from a patient perspective, SRS and SBRT provide patients a clinically effective treatment option, while from the payer and provider perspective, SRS and SBRT demonstrate cost savings. © 2013 Bijlani, Aguzzi, Schaal and Romanelli.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bijlani, A., Aguzzi, G., Schaal, D. W., & Romanelli, P. (2013). Stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy cost-effectiveness results. Frontiers in Oncology, 3 APR. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2013.00077

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free