Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Clinical evaluation based on cost-effectiveness].

Authors: T, Inoue; T, Inoue;

[Clinical evaluation based on cost-effectiveness].

Abstract

We carried out two Phase III clinical trials using high dose rate (HDR) remote afterloading brachytherapy unit. We evaluated the clinical results based not only on the medical but also the economical standpoint. The first trial is the Phase III trial for cervical cancer treated with HDR or medium dose rate (MDR) intracavitary radiotherapy. The second one is the Phase III trial for tongue cancer treated with HDR or low dose rate (LDR) interstitial radiation. For cervical cancer, the survival rate of patients treated with HDR brachytherapy is the same as for LDR brachytherapy. The average total cost of treatment for the HDR group was 1.47 million yen, while that for the MDR group was 1.58 million yen. The average total admission days was 63. For tongue cancer, the local control rate of the HDR group is almost the same as that of the LDR groups. The average total cost for the HDR group was 780 thousand yen, and that for the LDR group was 830 thousand yen. The average total admission days was 34. According to the cost-effectiveness, HDR brachytherapy for cervical cancer has the same result as MDR, and HDR brachytherapy for tongue cancer has the same result as LDR. However, HDR can be treated without admission for patients who live near the hospital. HDR can be applied for these patients with less expense. We must be aware of not only the medical results but also the cost-effectiveness.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, National Health Programs, Radiotherapy, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Brachytherapy, Length of Stay, Middle Aged, Hospital Charges, Tongue Neoplasms, Radiotherapy, High-Energy, Survival Rate, Uterine Neoplasms, Humans, Female, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!