Set al. (1997)BanerjeeUSACost analysiset al. (2008)ManningUSACost-et al. (2000)effectivenessCho et al.TaiwanCost analysis(2006)TarriconeItalyCost-SRS is price savinget al. (2008)effectivenessMehta et al.USACost-utilityRT plus SRS dominates(1997)Lal et al.USACost-utilitySRS plus observation vs. SRS plus WBRT 44,231/LYS; 41,783/QALYSRS and SBRT cost-effectiveness final results(2012)April 2013 | Volume 3 | Article 77 |Bijlani et al.SRS and SBRT cost-effectiveness resultsRT, radiation therapy; SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery; HSRT, hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy; WBRT, whole-brain radiation therapy; USD, Usa dollar; LY/LYS, life years/life year saved; QALY, qualitycost ffectiveness thanSRS plus observation vs. SRS plus whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). The median survival on the SRS plus observation group was 15.2 months, although the median survival for SRS plus WBRT was five.5,7-Dibromoquinoline web 7 months. Having said that, the recurrence rates have been higher for sufferers treated with SRS plus observation in comparison to SRS plus WBRT (71 vs. 15 ). Compared with SRS plus WBRT, SRS plus observation had a larger average expense ( 74,000 vs. 119,000) but a higher typical effectiveness [0.60 life years saved (LYS) vs. 1.64, respectively] with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 44,231 per LYS or 41,783 per QALY (10-year horizon).914988-10-6 Price Rutigliano et al. (1995) created a cost-effectiveness model that compared the results of surgical resection and SRS for the treatment of solitary metastatic brain tumors. The study discovered that SRS had a decrease uncomplicated process cost ( 20,209 vs.PMID:28630660 27,587), a lower typical complication expense per case ( 2,534 vs. two,874), a reduced total expense per procedure ( 22,743 vs. 30,461), was more cost-effective ( 24,811 vs. 32,149 per life year) and had a better incremental cost-effectiveness ( 40,648 vs. 52,384 per life year) when compared with surgical resection. Treatment-related morbidity and mortality have been greater with surgical resection in comparison to radiosurgery (29.7 vs. 12.9 ; six.six vs. 0 ). Tan et al. (2011) compared the initial and post-treatment (1-year) expenses of microsurgery, linac radiosurgery, and Gamma Knife radiosurgery in meningioma patients. Initial therapy charges have been C12,299, C1,547, and C2,412 for microsurgery, linac radiosurgery, and Gamma Knife radiosurgery respectively. Microsurgery sufferers have been admitted for an average of 11.three inpatient days, which contributed to the higher microsurgery costs. Microsurgery inpatient remain cost was C5,321 even though the indirect expense was C4,350. The microsurgery inpatient cost was nearly 14 occasions larger than linac or Gamma Knife radiosurgery (C5,321 vs. C386). Additionally, the 1-year follow-up charges have been C2,041 for microsurgery, C1,514 for linac radiosurgery, and C1,553 for Gamma Knife. This accounted for each treatment-related and treatment-unrelated fees. The annual total costs, like gear expense per fraction, had been C14,329 for microsurgery, C3,060 for linac radiosurgery, and C3,966 for Gamma Knife. Mehta et al. (1997) compared the outcomes of treatment using a combination therapy of radiation therapy (RT) plus surgery or RT plus radiosurgery. The median cost for RT plus surgery was 22,018 though the price median costs of RT plus radiosurgery was 15,102, while the cost-effectiveness was drastically much better for RT plus radiosurgery in comparison to RT plus surgery ( 13,729 vs. 27,523 per year of survival gained). The average expense of QALY was 15,012 for RT plus radiosurgery, 31,454 per Q.