ESTRO 2025 - Abstract Book

S2330

Interdisciplinary – Health economics & health services research

ESTRO 2025

Figure 2. A scatter plot integrating the intensity/weight of the impact Conclusion: The introduction of 5-fraction radiotherapy has an important OI. Better understanding and large-scale assessment of OI could facilitate efficient implementation strategies.

Keywords: Hypofractionated, implementation, impact

References: 1) https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_2902770/en/organisational-impact-map-for-health-technology-assessment 2) Murray A, Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward) Lancet, 2020 3) Seppänen AV, Or Z. The Environmental Sustainability of Health Care Systems, 2023 Apr 4) https://www.assurance-maladie.ameli.fr/sites/default/files/2022_fiche_cancer-sein-femme-actif.pdf 5) Corbin S, Retrospective study on the intensification of hypofractionated radiotherapy, 2020 6) Yaremko HL, Cost Minimization Analysis of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy, 2021 7) Rivera S, Carbon footprint of the one-week ultra hypofractionated breast radiotherapy workflow. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 2023

3857

Digital Poster systematic literature review of particle therapy costing literature: a 20-years overview Yaqeen Shanti 1 , Sophie Hoozée 2 , Delphine De Smedt 1 , Barbara Vanderstraeten 1,3 , Yolande Lievens 1,3 1 Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 2 Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 3 Radiation Oncology Department, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium Purpose/Objective: Particle therapy (PT) is an emerging radiotherapy innovation, but clear evidence of its clinical and economic advantages to photon therapy remains limited. (1) Its high costs, driven by high capital investment, longer treatment durations, and specialized staff requirements, necessitate the need for a standardized approach for cost accounting. This systematic review assesses the consistency in methodologies and analytical content of costing studies of PT, aiming to inform the development of a standardized costing model. Material/Methods: A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Medline (Ovid), and Scopus, guided by the PRISMA 2020 checklist and ISPOR recommendations, (2) was conducted. Grey literature from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database was also included. Articles published in English, January 2000 to May 2024, were included if they presented clear costing methodologies, well-defined cost variables for PT in any cancer type, and original costing calculations within economic evaluations or studies with a broader focus. Exclusion criteria included budget impact analyses, cost estimations based on reimbursement or payer data, cost-of-illness studies, reviews, and clinical trials. Data were extracted on methodologies, input variables, and outcomes reported. Studies quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, (3) with a focus on items relevant to costing analyses. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Apart from differences in year of analysis and geographic region, significant heterogeneity was observed in costing methodologies, ranging from detailed micro-costing to less granular traditional costing analyses. Some studies employed time to allocate resource costs to treatments, as Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TD-ABC) (Table 1). (Table 2) demonstrates that input variables of the costing models were equally variable: inputs were classified as direct or indirect based on their relationship to