Search

Contains fulltext : 248673.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, many hospitals have adopted hybrid operating rooms (ORs). As resources are limited, these ORs have to prove themselves in adding value. Current estimations on standard OR costs show great variety, while cost analyses of hybrid ORs are lacking. Therefore, this study aims to identify the cost drivers of a conventional and hybrid OR and take a first step in evaluating the added value of the hybrid OR. METHODS: A comprehensive bottom-up cost analysis was conducted in five Dutch hospitals taking into account: construction, inventory, personnel and overhead costs by means of interviews and hospital specific data. The costs per minute for both ORs were calculated using the utilization rates of the ORs. Cost drivers were identified by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The costs per minute for the conventional OR and the hybrid OR were €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10- €23.07), respectively. Total personnel and total inventory costs had most impact on the conventional OR costs. For the hybrid OR the costs were mostly driven by utilization rate, total inventory and construction costs. The results were incorporated in an open access calculation model to enable adjustment of the input parameters to a specific hospital or country setting. CONCLUSION: This study estimated a cost of €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10-€23.07) for the conventional and hybrid OR, respectively. The main factors influencing the OR costs are: total inventory costs, total construction costs, utilization rate, and total personnel costs. Our analysis can be used as a basis for future research focusing on evaluating value for money of this promising innovative OR. Furthermore, our results can inform surgeons, and decision and policy-makers in hospitals on the adoption and optimal utilization of new (hybrid) ORs.

Contains fulltext : 207396.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 215831.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), INTRODUCTION: Innovations in head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment are often subject to economic evaluation prior to their reimbursement and subsequent access for patients. Mapping functions facilitate economic evaluation of new treatments when the required utility data is absent, but quality of life data is available. The objective of this study is to develop a mapping function translating the EORTC QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-derived utilities for HNC through regression modeling, and to explore the added value of disease-specific EORTC QLQ-H&N35 scales to the model. METHODS: Data was obtained on patients with primary HNC treated with curative intent derived from two hospitals. Model development was conducted in two phases: 1. Predictor selection based on theory- and data-driven methods, resulting in three sets of potential predictors from the quality of life questionnaires; 2. Selection of the best out of four methods: ordinary-least squares, mixed-effects linear, Cox and beta regression, using the first set of predictors from EORTC QLQ-C30 scales with most correspondence to EQ-5D dimensions. Using a stepwise approach, we assessed added values of predictors in the other two sets. Model fit was assessed using Akaike and Bayesian Information Criterion (AIC and BIC) and model performance was evaluated by MAE, RMSE and limits of agreement (LOA). RESULTS: The beta regression model showed best model fit, with global health status, physical-, role- and emotional functioning and pain scales as predictors. Adding HNC-specific scales did not improve the model. Model performance was reasonable; R2 = 0.39, MAE = 0.0949, RMSE = 0.1209, 95% LOA of -0.243 to 0.231 (bias -0.01), with an error correlation of 0.32. The estimated shrinkage factor was 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Selected scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 can be used to estimate utilities for HNC using beta regression. Including EORTC QLQ-H&N35 scales does not improve the mapping function. The mapping model may serve as a tool to enable cost

Background: At present, palliative systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment in the Netherlands for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. In contrast to lymphatic and haematogenous dissemination, peritoneal dissemination may be regarded as locoregional spread of disease. Administering cytotoxic drugs directly into the peritoneal cavity has an advantage over systemic chemotherapy since high concentrations can be delivered directly into the peritoneal cavity with limited systemic toxicity. The combination of a radical gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer in Asia. However, the results obtained in Asian patients cannot be extrapolated to Western patients. The aim of this study is to compare the overall survival between patients with gastric cancer with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, and those treated with gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Methods: In this multicentre randomised controlled two-armed phase III trial, 106 patients will be randomised (1:1) between palliative systemic chemotherapy only (standard treatment) and gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC (experimental treatment) after 3–4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.Patients with gastric cancer are eligible for inclusion if (1) the primary cT3-cT4 gastric tumour including regional lymph nodes is considered to be resectable, (2) limited peritoneal dissemination (Peritoneal Cancer Index < 7) and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology are confirmed by laparoscopy or laparotomy, and (3) systemic chemotherapy was given (prior to inclusion) without disease progression. Discussion: The PERISCOPE II study will determine whether gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with systemic chemotherap

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: In early stages of development of new medical technologies, there are conceptually separate but related societal decisions to be made concerning adoption, further development (i.e., technical improvement), and research (i.e., clinical trials) of new technologies. This article presents a framework to simultaneously support these three decisions from a societal perspective. The framework is applied to the 70-gene signature, a gene-expression profile for breast cancer, deciding which patients should receive adjuvant systemic therapy after surgery. The "original" signature performed on fresh frozen tissue (70G-FFT) could be further developed to a paraffin-based signature (70G-PAR) to reduce test failures. METHODS: A Markov decision model comparing the "current" guideline Adjuvant Online (AO), 70G-FFT, and 70G-PAR was used to simulate 20-year costs and outcomes in a hypothetical cohort in The Netherlands. The 70G-PAR strategy was based on projected data from a comparable technology. Incremental net monetary benefits were calculated to support the adoption decision. Expected net benefit of development for the population and expected net benefit of sampling were calculated to support the development and research decision. RESULTS: The 70G-PAR had the highest net monetary benefit, followed by the 70G-FFT. The population expected net benefit of development amounted to euro91 million over 20 years (assuming euro250 development costs per patient receiving the test). The expected net benefit of sampling amounted to euro61 million for the optimal trial (n = 4000). CONCLUSIONS: We presented a framework to simultaneously support adoption, development, and research decisions in early stages of medical technology development. In this case, the results indicate that there is value in both further development of 70G-FFT into 70G-PAR and further research.