Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:07:56.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality Assurance Procedures in Radiotherapy: Economic Criteria to Support Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Katrien Kesteloot ,
André Dutreix  and
Emmanuel van der Schueren
Katrien Kesteloot
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
André Dutreix
Affiliation:
University Hospital St. Rafaël, Leuven
Emmanuel van der Schueren
Affiliation:
University Hospital St. Rafaël, Leuven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper details the costs of two types of quality assurance activities in radiotherapy: in vivo dosimetry, intended to check the delivered dose, and portal imaging to check the treated volume. For both activities, either on-line or off-line techniques may be used. Describing the costs allows the calculation of which techniques are most COSt-efficient for different radiotherapy departments.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Spring 1993 , pp. 274 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.AAPM. Physical aspects of quality assurance in radiation therapy. Radiation Therapy Committee TG #24. New York: American Institute of Physics, 1987.Google Scholar
2.Drummond, M. F., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
3.Goddard, M. K. & Drummond, M.The economic evaluation of cancer treatment and programmes. European Journal of Cancer, 1991, 10, 1191–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Goddard, M. & Hutton, J.. Economic evaluation of trends in cancer therapy: Marginal or average costs? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1991, 7, 594–603.Google Scholar
5.Herring, D. & Compton, D. M. J. The degree of precision required in the radiation dose delivered in cancer therapy. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computers in Radiotherapy, Special Report #5, 1971.Google Scholar
6.ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements). Determination of absorbed dose in a patient irradiated by beams of X or gamma rays in radiotherapy procedures. Report 24, Washington, DC: ICRU Publications, 1976.Google Scholar
7.ISCRO (Inter-Society Council for Radiation Oncology). Radiation oncology in integrated cancer management, 1991.Google Scholar
8.Kesteloot, K., Dutreix, A., & van der Schueren, E. A model for calculating the costs of in vivo dosimetry and portal imaging in radiotherapy departments. Submitted to Radiotherapy and Oncology, 1993.Google Scholar
9.Leunens, G., Van Dam, J., Dutreix, A., & van der Schueren, E.Quality assurance in radiotherapy by in vivo dosimetry. 1. Entrance dose measurements, a reliable procedure. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 1990, 17, 141–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Mitine, C., Leunens, G., Verstraete, J., et al. Is it necessary to repeat quality control procedures for head and neck patients? Radiotherapy and Oncology, 1991, 21, 201–10.Google Scholar
11.WHO (World Health Organization). Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy. Geneva: WHO, 1988.Google Scholar