Scholarlink

Background and objective <p>Thie study aimed to examine the economic implications of different radiotherapy fractionation schemes, specifically normofractionation (NF) and hypofractionation (HF), for breast and prostate cancer in the outpatient setting of the German healthcare system. In times of workforce shortages, limited machine availability, and rising patient numbers, the study aims to identify which fractionation approach offers the highest value in terms of efficiency and economic sustainability, aligning with a&#xa0;value-based healthcare framework.</p> Methods <p>Economic models were developed using German reimbursement data (EBM), treatment costs, machine usage, and realistic patient volumes. Three breast cancer fractionation schemes (conventional NF with 30&#xa0;fractions, i.e., 25&#xa0;fractions to the whole breast +5&#xa0;boost fractions), NF with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) comprising 28&#xa0;fractions, and HF with 20&#xa0;fractions (15&#xa0;fractions to the whole breast +5&#xa0;boost fractions) as well as two prostate cancer regimens (39 × 2.0 Gy versus 20 × 3.0 Gy) were compared. A&#xa0;standardized clinic setup with two linear accelerators and defined full-time staff was assumed. Analyses included cost, break-even points, contribution margins, and personnel needs in both scenarios (HF and NF).</p> Results <p>Despite lower reimbursement per case, HF regimens yielded significantly higher economic efficiency due to increased patient throughput and reduced staff-time per treatment. Over 10&#xa0;years, the total revenue per linear accelerator for HF breast cancer treatments reached approximately € 56.9 million, compared to € 40.2 million and € 46.6 million for the two NF approaches. A&#xa0;one-time investment of € 50,000 for implementing HF (e.g., for software, training, and workflow optimization) could be amortized within a&#xa0;few days, depending on the scenario. Simulation models further demonstrated substantial efficiency gains under hypofractionation without the need to expand machine capacity—an important strategy amidst staffing shortages and increasing demand.</p> Conclusion <p>When supported by efficient clinic organization and sufficient patient volume, HF offers clear economic advantages over traditional fractionation schemes. However, for widespread implementation, structural reform of the current outpatient reimbursement system is desirable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

From fractionation to financials: economic and clinical implications of hypofractionation in German outpatient radiotherapy practice

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月26日

查看全文
  • Anastassia Löser,
  • Monika Huth,
  • Akvile Juskeviciute,
  • Tina Peters,
  • Anne-Sophie Mehdorn,
  • Charlotte Flüh,
  • Moritz Bültmann,
  • Oksana Zemskova,
  • Larysa Liubich,
  • Alexander von Ohlen,
  • Cedric Carl,
  • Lorenz Hahn,
  • Alla Smagarynska,
  • Dirk Rades,
  • Christian Schmidt

摘要

Background and objective

Thie study aimed to examine the economic implications of different radiotherapy fractionation schemes, specifically normofractionation (NF) and hypofractionation (HF), for breast and prostate cancer in the outpatient setting of the German healthcare system. In times of workforce shortages, limited machine availability, and rising patient numbers, the study aims to identify which fractionation approach offers the highest value in terms of efficiency and economic sustainability, aligning with a value-based healthcare framework.

Methods

Economic models were developed using German reimbursement data (EBM), treatment costs, machine usage, and realistic patient volumes. Three breast cancer fractionation schemes (conventional NF with 30 fractions, i.e., 25 fractions to the whole breast +5 boost fractions), NF with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) comprising 28 fractions, and HF with 20 fractions (15 fractions to the whole breast +5 boost fractions) as well as two prostate cancer regimens (39 × 2.0 Gy versus 20 × 3.0 Gy) were compared. A standardized clinic setup with two linear accelerators and defined full-time staff was assumed. Analyses included cost, break-even points, contribution margins, and personnel needs in both scenarios (HF and NF).

Results

Despite lower reimbursement per case, HF regimens yielded significantly higher economic efficiency due to increased patient throughput and reduced staff-time per treatment. Over 10 years, the total revenue per linear accelerator for HF breast cancer treatments reached approximately € 56.9 million, compared to € 40.2 million and € 46.6 million for the two NF approaches. A one-time investment of € 50,000 for implementing HF (e.g., for software, training, and workflow optimization) could be amortized within a few days, depending on the scenario. Simulation models further demonstrated substantial efficiency gains under hypofractionation without the need to expand machine capacity—an important strategy amidst staffing shortages and increasing demand.

Conclusion

When supported by efficient clinic organization and sufficient patient volume, HF offers clear economic advantages over traditional fractionation schemes. However, for widespread implementation, structural reform of the current outpatient reimbursement system is desirable.