-
- Aileen B Chen.
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. Electronic address: achen7@partners.org.
- Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014 Jan 1; 24 (1): 25-34.
AbstractTechnological advances are a major contributor to rising costs in health care, including radiation oncology. Despite the large amount spent on new technologies, technology assessment remains inadequate, leading to potentially costly and unnecessary use of new technologies. Comparative effectiveness studies have an important role to play in evaluating the benefits and harms of new technologies compared with older technologies and have been identified as a priority area for research by the Radiation Oncology Institute. This article outlines the elements of effective technology assessment, identifies key challenges to comparative effectiveness studies of new radiation oncology technologies, and reviews several examples of comparative effectiveness studies in radiation oncology, including studies on conformal radiation, IMRT, proton therapy, and other concurrent new technologies. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*,_underline_or**bold**. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>and subscript<sub>text</sub>. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3., hyphens-or asterisks*. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com) - Images can be included with:
 - For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote..