Anders Ask
Lund University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Anders Ask.
Acta Oncologica | 2005
Bengt Glimelius; Anders Ask; Göran Bjelkengren; Thomas Björk-Eriksson; Erik Blomquist; Bengt Johansson; Mikael Karlsson; Björn Zackrisson
A group of Swedish radiation oncologists and hospital physicists have estimated the number of patients in Sweden suitable for proton beam therapy in a facility where one of the principal aims is to facilitate randomized and other studies in which the advantage of protons can be shown and the magnitude of the differences compared with optimally administered conventional radiation treatment, also including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and brachytherapy, can be shown. The estimations have been based on current statistics of tumour incidence in Sweden, number of patients potentially eligible for radiation treatment, scientific support from clinical trials and model dose planning studies and knowledge of the dose-response relations of different tumours together with information on normal tissue complication rates. In Sweden, it is assessed that between 2200 and 2500 patients annually are eligible for proton beam therapy, and that for these patients the potential therapeutic benefit is so great as to justify the additional expense of proton therapy. This constitutes between 14–15% of all irradiated patients annually.
Urology | 1997
Irena Malmberg; Ulf Persson; Anders Ask; Jan Tennvall; Per-Anders Abrahamsson
OBJECTIVES In a prospective randomized Canadian trial, addition of radionuclide strontium (89Sr) to external radiotherapy (ER) was found to prolong the time to further ER by 15 weeks (35 versus 20, P = 0.006) compared to ER alone in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer (HRMPC). The total direct lifetime costs within the Swedish health care system for the following two treatment strategies was estimated as follows: (a) ER initially and in the event of relapse and (b) ER + 89Sr initially and ER in the event of relapse. METHODS Calculation of lifetime costs was based on the initial total treatment cost and the probability of future treatment costs. In a retrospective analysis, the average cost of a relapse treated with ER alone was calculated from the actual care consumption of 79 consecutive patients from the south of Sweden who received ER because of skeletal pain due to HRMPC. The costs related to ER included skeletal scintigraphy, ER, outpatient visits, inpatients days, and travel to the treatment center. When 89Sr was added, the cost also included the radionuclide and its administration. Costs in Swedish currency (SEK) were based on the regional tariff for 1993 (U.S.
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2011
Björn Zackrisson; Per Nilsson; Elisabeth Kjellén; Karl-Axel Johansson; Hans Modig; Eva Brun; Jan Nyman; Signe Friesland; Johan Reizenstein; Helena Sjödin; Lars Ekberg; Britta Lödén; Claes Mercke; Jan-Olof Fernberg; Lars Franzén; Anders Ask; Essie Persson; Gun Wickart-Johansson; Freddi Lewin; Lena Wittgren; Ove Björ; Thomas Björk-Eriksson
1 = SEK 8.30). RESULTS The initial cost for one relapse treated with ER alone was estimated to be SEK 31,011 (U.S.
Cancer Letters | 1992
Anders Ask; Lo Persson; Olle Heby
3736) per patient resident within county (close to hospital) and SEK 48,585 (U.S.
Acta Oncologica | 2005
Anders Ask; Bengt Johansson; Bengt Glimelius
5854) per patient resident out of county (far from hospital). The corresponding figure for initial addition of 89Sr to ER was SEK 43,426 (U.S.
Acta Oncologica | 2005
Anders Ask; Thomas Björk-Eriksson; Björn Zackrisson; Erik Blomquist; Bengt Glimelius
5232) and 61,000 (U.S.
Cancer | 1986
Göran Carlsson; Lo Hafström; P-E Jönsson; Anders Ask; B. Kallum; A. Lunderquist
7349), respectively. However, comparison between estimated lifetime cost for the two treatment strategies indicated potential cost savings with initial addition of 89Sr to 3% SEK 2720 (U.S.
Acta Oncologica | 2014
Kenneth Francis Hofland; Steinbjørn Hansen; Morten Sorensen; Silke Engelholm; Henrik Schultz; Aida Muhic; Kirsten Grunnet; Anders Ask; Junia Costa; Charlotte Kristiansen; Carsten Thomsen; Hans Skovgaard Poulsen; Ulrik Lassen
328) and 7% SEK 11,290 (U.S.
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2015
Björn Zackrisson; Elisabeth Kjellén; Karin Söderström; Eva Brun; Jan Nyman; Signe Friesland; Johan Reizenstein; Helena Sjödin; Lars Ekberg; Britta Lödén; Lars Franzén; Anders Ask; Gun Wickart-Johansson; Freddi Lewin; Thomas Björk-Eriksson; Erik Lundin; Tina Dalianis; Johan Wennerberg; Karl-Axel Johansson; Per Nilsson
1360), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Strontium-89 as initial supplement to ER for palliation of pain in HRMPC is beneficial both from the patient and lifetime health service costs perspectives.
Cancer | 1990
Ulf K. Zätterström; Johan Wennerberg; Robyn Attewell; Anders Ask
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Studies on accelerated fractionation (AF) in head and neck cancer have shown increased local control and survival compared with conventional fractionation (CF), while others have been non-conclusive. In 1998 a national Swedish group decided to perform a randomised controlled clinical study of AF. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with verified squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx (except glottic T1-T2, N0) and hypopharynx were included. Patients with prior chemotherapy or surgery were excluded. Patients were randomised to either CF (2Gy/day, 5days/week for 7 weeks, total dose 68Gy) or to AF (1.1Gy+2.0Gy/day, 5days/week for 4.5weeks, total dose 68Gy). An extensive quality assurance protocol was followed throughout the study. The primary end point was loco-regional tumour control (LRC) at two years after treatment. RESULTS The study was closed in 2006 when 750 patients had been randomised. Eighty-three percent of the patients had stages III-IV disease. Forty eight percent had oropharyngeal, 21% laryngeal, 17% hypopharyngeal and 14% oral cancers. There were no significant differences regarding overall survival (OS) or LRC between the two regimens. The OS at two years was 68% for AF and 67% for CF. The corresponding figures for LRC were 71% and 67%, respectively. There was a trend towards improved LRC for oral cancers treated (p=0.07) and for large tumours (T3-T4) (p=0.07) treated with AF. The AF group had significantly worse acute reactions, while there was no significant increase in late effects. CONCLUSION Overall the AF regimen did not prove to be more efficacious than CF. However, the trend towards improved results in AF for oral cancers needs to be further investigated.