Click here to


Are you sure ?

Yes, do it No, cancel

Considering Cost in New Facility and Program Design for Gynecologic Brachytherapy; a Comparison of Treatments for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer

M Roumeliotis*, S Quirk, K Thind, P Mcgeachy, T Phan, D Van Elburg, R Banerjee, K Martell, C Doll, W Smith, A Cameron, T Meyer, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, CA,


(Sunday, 7/12/2020)   [Eastern Time (GMT-4)]

Room: AAPM ePoster Library

Purpose: To assess the financial resources for brachytherapy treatment options for locally advanced cervical cancer and inform practitioners on program design alternatives in a public healthcare environment.

Methods: The resource requirements for two brachytherapy treatment modalities - applicator interstitial implants and perineal template interstitial implants - for large volume locally advanced cervical cancer were compared. The applicator interstitial implants are delivered by three implants, each separated by a week, as an outpatient procedure. The perineal template interstitial implants are delivered by a single implant, with three fractions separated by at least 6 hours, with an overnight hospital admission. Costs from provincial estimates in Alberta were categorized and compared according to the following groups: radiotherapy consumable supplies (needles, guiding tubes, templates), personnel (medical physicist, physician, nursing, radiation therapist), and facilities (patient admission, imaging, surgical). Capital equipment, including the remote afterloader and applicator costs, as part of a standard program were considered equivalent.

Results: The applicator interstitial procedure costs for consumable supplies, personnel, and facilities are $1,600, $4,100, and $7,700, respectively, for a total cost of $13,400 per patient. For perineal template interstitial procedures, the costs for consumable supplies, personnel, and facilities are $3,200, $2,100, and $6,900, respectively, for a total cost of $12,200. The increased cost of consumables for the perineal template interstitial procedure is offset by the resources dedicated to personnel. The increased cost of applicator interstitial procedures is primarily due to the time required to complete three separate implants. The overall resources for the perineal template interstitial procedure are lower than the applicator interstitial procedure.

Conclusion: public healthcare, brachytherapy programs often utilize funds from different resource pools. These results may aid practitioners in assessing costs when considering brachytherapy program design and can be used in conjunction with patient outcome data to determine cost effectiveness analysis of the two techniques.




TH- Brachytherapy: GYN Intracavity Brachytherapy

Contact Email