↓ Skip to main content

Lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 431)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12962-017-0084-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rakesh Patel, Olga Ivanov, Jeff Voigt

Abstract

To date no one has examined the quality of life and direct costs of care in treating early stage breast cancer with adjunct intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) over the life of the patient. As well no one has examined the effects of radiation exposure with both therapies on the longer term sequelae. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the cost-effectiveness of IORT vs. EBRT over the life of the patient. A Markov decision-analytic model evaluated these treatment strategies in terms of the direct costs in treating patients over their lifetime (including the downstream costs associated with radiation exposure) and the resultant quality of life of these patients. Medicare reimbursement amounts in treating patients were used for acute, steady state, recurrent cancer(s), and complications associated with radiation exposure. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the medical literature were assessed with each of these states. Life expectancies as well were derived from the medical literature. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for dominance and net monetary benefit [at a willingness to pay (WTP)] of $50,000/QALY. Sensitivity analysis was also performed. IORT was the dominant (least costly with greater QALYs) versus EBRT: total costs over the life of the patient = $53,179 (IORT) vs. $63,828 (EBRT) and total QALYs: 17.86 (IORT) vs. 17.06 (EBRT). At a willingness to pay of $50,000 for each additional QALY, the net monetary benefit demonstrated that IORT was the most cost effective option: $839,815 vs. $789,092. The model was most sensitive to the probabilities of recurrent cancer and death for both IORT and EBRT. IORT is the more valuable (lower cost with improved QALYs) strategy for use in patients presenting with early stage ER+ breast cancer. It should be used preferentially in these patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 27%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 45%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#534,637
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#6
of 431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,597
of 331,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them