Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30662472›Full record

ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2018

Cost in perspective: direct assessment of American market acceptability of Co-60 in gynecologic high-dose-rate brachytherapy and contrast with experience abroad.

Raymond B Mailhot Vega, David Barbee, Wesley Talcott, Tamara Duckworth, Bhartesh A Shah, Omar F Ishaq, Christina Small, Anamaria R Yeung, Carmen A Perez, Peter B Schiff and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Monte Carlo dosimetry of theRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The state of gynecologic radiation therapy in low- and middle-income countries.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Raymond B Mailhot VegaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, NYU School of Medicine New York, New York, USA.
David BarbeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, NYU School of Medicine New York, New York, USA.
Wesley TalcottDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yale University School of Medicine New Haven, CT, USA.
Tamara DuckworthDepartment of Radiation Oncology, NYU School of Medicine New York, New York, USA.
Bhartesh A ShahDepartment of Radiation Oncology, NYU School of Medicine New York, New York, USA.
Omar F IshaqDepartment of Radiation Oncology, W Temple Webber Cancer Center, Texarkana, Texas, USA.
Christina SmallDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Anamaria R YeungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Carmen A PerezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, NYU School of Medicine New York, New York, USA.
Peter B SchiffDepartment of Radiation Oncology, NYU School of Medicine New York, New York, USA.
Ophira GinsburgDepartment of Radiation Oncology, NYU School of Medicine New York, New York, USA.
William SmallDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
May Abdel-WahabDivision of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Gustavo Sarria BardalesInstituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas, Department of Radiation Oncology, Surquillo, Peru.
Matthew HarkenriderDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile Ir-192 remains the mainstay isotope for gynecologic high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in the U.S., Co-60 is used abroad. Co-60 has a longer half-life than Ir-192, which may lead to long-term cost savings; however, its higher energy requires greater shielding. This study analyzes Co-60 acceptability based on a one-time expense of additional shielding and reports the financial experience of Co-60 in Peru's National Cancer Institute, which uses both isotopes. MATERIAL AND

methodsA nationwide survey was undertaken assessing physician knowledge of Co-60 and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for additional shielding, assuming a source more cost-effective than Ir-192 was available. With 440 respondents, 280 clinicians were decision-makers and provided WTPs, with results previously reported. After completing a shielding report, we estimated costs for shielding expansion, noting acceptability to decision makers' WTP. Using activity-based costing, we note the Peruvian fiscal experience.

resultsShielding estimates ranged from $173,000 to $418,000. The percentage of respondents accepting high-density modular or lead shielding (for union and non-union settings) were 17.5%, 11.4%, 3.9%, and 3.2%, respectively. Shielding acceptance was associated with greater number of radiation oncologists in a respondent's department but not time in practice or the American Brachytherapy Society membership. Peru's experience noted cost savings with Co-60 of $52,400 annually.

conclusionsBy comparing the cost of additional shielding for a sample institution's HDR suite with radiation oncologists' WTP, this multi-institutional collaboration noted < 20% of clinicians would accept additional shielding. Despite low acceptability in the US, Co-60 demonstrates cost-favorability in Peru and may similarly in other locations.

Indexed as

brachytherapycobalt-60costs and cost analysisdecision-makingeconomicsgynecologic tumorHDRsurvey

Identifiers

PMID30662472
PMCPMC6335552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.