↓ Skip to main content

The value of using a brain laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) system in patients presenting with high grade gliomas where maximal safe resection may not be feasible

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The value of using a brain laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) system in patients presenting with high grade gliomas where maximal safe resection may not be feasible
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12962-016-0055-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey D. Voigt, Gene Barnett

Abstract

The objective of this analysis was to determine the value (incremental cost/increment benefit) of a brain LITT system versus employing current surgical options recommended by NCCN guidelines, specifically open resection (i.e. craniotomy) methods or biopsy (collectively termed CURRENT TREATMENTS) in patients where maximal safe resection may not be feasible. As has been demonstrated in the literature, extent of resection/ablation with minimal complications are independently related to overall survival. A cost effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was employed using TreeAge Pro 2014 software. Direct costs (using national average Medicare reimbursement amounts), outcomes (overall survival), and value [defined as increment cost/incremental survival-evaluated as cost/life year gained (LYG)] were evaluated. Sensitivity analysis was also performed to determine which variables had the largest effect on incremental costs and outcomes. In the base case, the overall survival was improved with brain LITT versus CURRENT TREATMENTS by 3.07 months at an additional cost of $7508 (or $29,340/LYG). This amount was significantly less than the current international threshold value for $32,575/LYG and considerably less than the US threshold value of $50,000/LYG. This incremental cost may also qualify under NICE criteria for end of life therapies. In sensitivity analysis: As percent local recurrence GBM increased; cost of DRG25/26 increased; percent GTR increased; and gliadel use increased-the value of brain LITT improved. Additionally, in those patients where a biopsy is the only option, brain LITT extended life by 7 months. Brain LITT should be considered a viable option for treatment of high grade gliomas as it improves survival at a cost which appears to be of good value to society. This incremental cost is less than the international and US thresholds for good value.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 31%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,793,546
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#335
of 423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,098
of 299,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.