↓ Skip to main content

Activity-based cost analysis of hepatic tumor ablation using CT-guided high-dose rate brachytherapy or CT-guided radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Activity-based cost analysis of hepatic tumor ablation using CT-guided high-dose rate brachytherapy or CT-guided radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma
Published in
Radiation Oncology, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0606-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Schnapauff, F. Collettini, I. Steffen, G. Wieners, B. Hamm, B. Gebauer, M. H. Maurer

Abstract

To analyse and compare the costs of hepatic tumor ablation with computed tomography (CT)-guided high-dose rate brachytherapy (CT-HDRBT) and CT-guided radiofrequency ablation (CT-RFA) as two alternative minimally invasive treatment options of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). An activity based process model was created determining working steps and required staff of CT-RFA and CT-HDRBT. Prorated costs of equipment use (purchase, depreciation, and maintenance), costs of staff, and expenditure for disposables were identified in a sample of 20 patients (10 treated by CT-RFA and 10 by CT-HDRBT) and compared. A sensitivity and break even analysis was performed to analyse the dependence of costs on the number of patients treated annually with both methods. Costs of CT-RFA were nearly stable with mean overall costs of approximately 1909 €, 1847 €, 1816 € and 1801 € per patient when treating 25, 50, 100 or 200 patients annually, as the main factor influencing the costs of this procedure was the single-use RFA probe. Mean costs of CT-HDRBT decreased significantly per patient ablation with a rising number of patients treated annually, with prorated costs of 3442 €, 1962 €, 1222 € and 852 € when treating 25, 50, 100 or 200 patients, due to low costs of single-use disposables compared to high annual fix-costs which proportionally decreased per patient with a higher number of patients treated annually. A break-even between both methods was reached when treating at least 55 patients annually. Although CT-HDRBT is a more complex procedure with more staff involved, it can be performed at lower costs per patient from the perspective of the medical provider when treating more than 55 patients compared to CT-RFA, mainly due to lower costs for disposables and a decreasing percentage of fixed costs with an increasing number of treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,443,697
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,413
of 2,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,732
of 298,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#38
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,058 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 298,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.