Minimally invasive surgery for suspected early-stage ovarian cancer; a cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: While there are a number of benefits to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for women with ovarian cysts, there is an increased risk of ovarian capsule rupture during the procedure, which could potentially seed the abdominal cavity with malignant cells. We developed a decision model to compare the risks, benefits, effectiveness and cost of MIS versus laparotomy in women with ovarian masses. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness study POPULATION: Hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women with ovarian masses who were undergoing surgical management. METHODS: The initial decision point in the model was performance of surgery via laparotomy or a MIS approach. Model probabilities, costs and utility values were derived from published literature and administrative data sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness of MIS versus laparotomy for women with a pelvic mass measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: MIS was the least costly strategy at $7,732 per women on average, compared with $17,899 for laparotomy. In our hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women, there were 64 cases of ovarian rupture in the MIS group and 53 in the laparotomy group, while there were 26 cancer-related deaths in the MIS group and 25 in the laparotomy group. MIS was more effective than laparotomy (188 462 QALYs for MIS versus 187 631 quality adjusted life years [QALYs] for laparotomy). Thus, MIS was a dominant strategy, being both less costly and more effective than laparotomy. These results were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: MIS constitutes a cost-effective management strategy for women with suspicious ovarian masses. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: MIS is a cost-effective management strategy for women with suspicious ovarian masses.

Influence of health insurance, hospital factors and physician volume on receipt of immediate post-mastectomy reconstruction in women with invasive and non-invasive breast cancer.

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy, immediate breast reconstruction (IR) offers a cosmetic and psychological advantage. We evaluated the association between demographic, hospital, surgeon and insurance factors and receipt of IR. We conducted a retrospective hospital-based analysis with the Perspective database. Women who underwent a mastectomy for invasive breast cancer (IBC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from 2000 to 2010 were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors predictive of IR. Analyses were stratified by age (<50 vs. ≥ 50) and IBC versus DCIS. Of the 108,992 women with IBC who underwent mastectomy, 30,859 (28.3 %) underwent IR, as compared to 6,501 (44.2 %) of the 14,710 women with DCIS who underwent mastectomy underwent IR. In a multivariable model for IBC, increasing age, black race, being married, rural location, and increased comorbidities were associated with decreased IR. Odds ratios (OR) of IR increased with commercial insurance (OR 3.38) and Medicare (OR 1.66) insurance (vs. self-pay), high surgeon-volume (OR 1.19), high hospital-volume (OR 2.24), and large hospital size (OR 1.20). The results were identical for DCIS, and by age category. The absolute difference between the proportion of patients who received IR with commercial insurance compared to other insurance, increased over time. Immediate in-hospital complication rates were higher for flap reconstruction compared to implant or no reconstruction (15.2, 4.0, and 6.1 %, respectively, P < .0001). IR has increased significantly over time; however, modifiable factors such as insurance status, hospital size, hospital location, and physician volume strongly predict IR. Public policy should ensure that access to reconstructive surgery is universally available.