FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2046770178> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2046770178 endingPage "A34" @default.
• W2046770178 startingPage "A33" @default.
• W2046770178 abstract "<h3>Introduction</h3> Recent NICE guidelines suggest offering endoscopic ablative therapy to patients with high-grade dysplasia and intra-mucosal oesophageal carcinoma as an alternative to surgery. Both Photodynamic therapy (PDT) and Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are recommended by NICE taking into account their long-term efficacy, cost and complication rates. There are no direct comparative studies of RFA versus PDT but NICE suggested PDT had increased side-effects and was less cost-effective. As a single institution that has undertaken both forms of ablative treatment, we aimed to compare the difference in cost for PDT and HALO within a single site. <h3>Methods</h3> University Hospital Aintree is a upper GI cancer referral centre with experience in ablative therapy. Patients that had undergone PDT (2005–2008) and HALO RFA (2008–2009) for flat HGD and intramucosal cancer were included. Drug, admission and endoscopy consumable costs were calculated. <h3>Results</h3> PDT patients were treated with photofrin photosensitiser 48 h pre-procedure followed by activation using a laser fibre via a balloon-centering device as an inpatient. Pharmaceutical company provides laser loan facility so no capital costs incurred. Patients were allowed home once symptoms stable. All endoscopic procedures were carried out under conscious sedation. Following PDT all patients underwent surveillance examination and APC was applied to residual Barrett9s in all but one case. No dilatations were needed post therapy. RFA patients had ablation on a 3 monthly basis using HALO 90 and 360 consumables as per UK RFA HALO registry protocol until eradication of Barrett9s. No capital costs for equipment which was loaned from company. Two patients were admitted following RFA due to lack of escort and chest pain. Number of ablations undertaken ranged from 1 to 4 (mean 2). Two patients had EMR post ablation of focal lesions. Following ablation all patients entered a standard surveillance follow-up. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Our costing calculations show RFA to be cheaper than PDT on average when calculated across a similar number of patients at a single institution. This is in keeping with the NICE cost effectiveness analysis. Significant individual variation for both procedures relates to hospital admission, consumables, drug costs and need for further endoscopic therapy. Side effect profile and long-term outcomes will also need to be taken into account in choice of ablative therapy." @default.
• W2046770178 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2046770178 creator A5011248072 @default.
• W2046770178 creator A5048938827 @default.
• W2046770178 creator A5052589134 @default.
• W2046770178 creator A5087689204 @default.
• W2046770178 date "2011-03-13" @default.
• W2046770178 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2046770178 title "Comparison of costs of photodynamic therapy and radiofrequency ablation for management of dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus: the Aintree experience" @default.
• W2046770178 doi "https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2011.239301.66" @default.
• W2046770178 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2046770178 type Work @default.
• W2046770178 sameAs 2046770178 @default.
• W2046770178 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2046770178 countsByYear W20467701782017 @default.
• W2046770178 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2046770178 hasAuthorship W2046770178A5011248072 @default.
• W2046770178 hasAuthorship W2046770178A5048938827 @default.
• W2046770178 hasAuthorship W2046770178A5052589134 @default.
• W2046770178 hasAuthorship W2046770178A5087689204 @default.
• W2046770178 hasBestOaLocation W20467701781 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C19617505 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C2775894508 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C2777377203 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C2778902805 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C2779256446 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C509974204 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C126322002 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C126838900 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C141071460 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C19617505 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C199360897 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C2775894508 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C2777377203 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C2778902805 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C2779256446 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C41008148 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C509974204 @default.
• W2046770178 hasConceptScore W2046770178C71924100 @default.
• W2046770178 hasIssue "Suppl 1" @default.
• W2046770178 hasLocation W20467701781 @default.
• W2046770178 hasOpenAccess W2046770178 @default.
• W2046770178 hasPrimaryLocation W20467701781 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W2004071307 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W2031414027 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W2102401012 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W2110620867 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W2505805371 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W2899347216 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W3157154227 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W3157876388 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W4366221664 @default.
• W2046770178 hasRelatedWork W85908649 @default.
• W2046770178 hasVolume "60" @default.
• W2046770178 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2046770178 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2046770178 magId "2046770178" @default.
• W2046770178 workType "article" @default.