Development of a virtual spacer to support the decision for the placement of an implantable rectum spacer for prostate cancer radiotherapy: Comparison of dose, toxicity and cost-effectiveness
Radiotherapy & Oncology Aug 30, 2017
van Wijk Y, et al. Â Researchers conducted a comparative and costÂeffective analysis which indicated that the virtualÂimplantable rectum spacer (IRS) approach in combination with a toxicity prediction model and a costÂeffectiveness analyses is a promising basis for a decision support tool for the implantation of either a hydrogel spacer or a rectum balloon implant. MethodsGo to Original
- Researchers evaluated the V–IRS on 16 patients: 8 with a rectal balloon implant (RBI) and 8 with a hydrogel spacer.
- They established A V–IRS applying 7 computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with a RBI.
- They applied CT scans before and after the implantation of an IRS to analyze the V–IRS,.
- IMRT plans were made based on CT scans before the IRS, after IRS and with the V–IRS, prescribing 70 Gray (Gy) to the planning target volume.
- They evaluated toxicity applying externally validated normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, and the Cost–effectiveness was analyzed using a published Markov model.
- It was noted that the rectum volume receiving 75 Gy (V75) were improved by both the IRS and the V–IRS with on average 4.2% and 4.3% respectively.
- The data displayed that the largest NTCP reduction resulting from the IRS and the V–IRS was 4.0% and 3.9% respectively.
- It was noted that RBI was cost–effective for 1 out of 8 patients, and the hydrogel was effective for 2 out of 8 patients, and close to effective for a third patient.
- It was illustrated that the classification accuracy of the model, regarding cost–effectiveness, was 100%.
Only Doctors with an M3 India account can read this article. Sign up for free.
55 lakhs+ doctors trust M3 globally
Unlimited access to original articles by experts
Secure: we never sell your data
Signing up takes less than 2 mins