Resource utilization. High dose rate versus low dose rate brachytherapy for gynecologic cancer

A comparative analysis of anesthesia use, perioperative morbidity and mortality, capital, and treatment cost of high dose rate versus low dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy for gynecologic malignancy is presented. To assess current anesthesia utilization, application location, and high dose rate afterloader availability for gynecologic brachytherapy in private and academic practices, a nine-question survey was sent to 150 radiotherapy centers in the United States, of which 95 (63%) responded. Of these 95 respondents, 95% used low dose rate brachytherapy, and 18% possessed high dose rate capability. General anesthesia was used in 95% of programs for tandem + ovoid and in 31% for ovoids-only placement. Differences among private and academic practice respondents were minimal. In our institution, a cost comparison for low dose rate therapy (two applications with 3 hospital days per application, operating and recovery room use, spinal anesthesia, radiotherapy) versus high dose rate treatment (five outpatient departmental applications, intravenous anesthesia without an anesthesiologist, radiotherapy) revealed a 244% higher overall charge for low dose rate treatment, primarily due to hospital and operating room expenses. In addition to its ability to save thousands of dollars per intracavitary patient, high dose rate therapy generated a "cost-shift," increasing radiotherapy departmental billings by 438%. More importantly, perioperative morbidity and mortality in our experience of 500+ high dose rate applications compared favorably with recently reported data using low dose rate intracavitary treatment. Capital investment, maintenance requirements, and depreciation costs for high dose rate capability are reviewed. Application of the defined "revenue-cost ratio" formula demonstrates the importance of high application numbers and consistent reimbursement for parity in high dose rate operation. Logically, inadequate third-party reimbursement (e.g., Medicare) reduces high dose rate parity and threatens the future availability of high dose rate technology.