A comparative study using time-driven activity-based costing in single-fraction breast high-dose rate brachytherapy: An integrated brachytherapy suite vs. decentralized workflow.

Precision breast intraoperative radiation therapy (PB -IORT) is a novel approach to adjuvant radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer performed as part of a phase II clinical trial at two institutions. One institution performs the entire procedure in an integrated brachytherapy suite which contains a CT-on-rails imaging unit and full anesthesia capabilities. At the other, breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy take place in two separate locations. Here, we utilize time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to compare these two models for the delivery of PB-IORT. Process maps were created to describe each step required to deliver PB -IORT at each institution, including personnel, equipment, and supplies. Time investment was estimated for each step. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource, and total costs of care were then calculated by multiplying the capacity cost rates by the time estimate for the process step and adding any additional product costs. PB -IORT costs less to deliver at a distributed facility, as is more commonly available, than an integrated brachytherapy suite ($3,262.22 vs. $3,996.01). The largest source of costs in both settings ($2,400) was consumable supplies, including the brachytherapy balloon applicator. The difference in costs for the two facility types was driven by personnel costs ($1,263.41 vs. $764.89). In the integrated facility, increased time required by radiation oncology nursing and the anesthesia attending translated to the greatest increases in cost. Equipment costs were also slightly higher in the integrated suite setting ($332.60 vs. $97.33). The overall cost of care is higher when utilizing an integrated brachytherapy suite to deliver PB- IORT. This was primarily driven by additional personnel costs from nursing and anesthesia, although the greatest cost of delivery in both settings was the disposable brachytherapy applicator. These differences in cost must be balanced against the potential impact on patient experience with these approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]