Assessment of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy Receipt by Age and Association With Outcomes in Women With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) reduces locoregional recurrence (LRR) and improves overall survival (OS) in patients with breast cancer. Young age has been recognized as a risk factor for LRR. The primary objective of this study was to determine if recommendations for PMRT differed among patients younger than 50 years as compared to women aged 50 years or older. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy with or without PMRT from 2010 through 2018. Univariable and multivariable models were used to estimate the association of age with PMRT. RESULTS: Of 2471 patients, 839 (34%) were <50 years; 1632 (66%) were ≥50 years. Patients <50 years had a higher percentage of grade 3 tumors, hormone receptor (HR) negative and/or Her-2/neu positive tumors, clinical stage T2/T3 tumors, and nodal involvement. Compared with patients ≥50 years, patients <50 years were more likely to undergo PMRT (OR 1.57; P = .001) and regional node irradiation (RNI) to the internal mammary nodes. Advanced clinical and pathologic stage, invasive tumor histology, the presence of lymphovascular invasion, and treatment with systemic chemotherapy were predictors of PMRT receipt for patients <50 years (P < .05). PMRT was associated with improved OS and recurrence free survival (RFS) among all patients (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Patients <50 years were more likely to undergo PMRT and to receive RNI to the internal mammary nodes but were also more likely to have other risk factors for recurrence that would warrant a PMRT recommendation. PMRT improved OS and RFS for all patients.

Single surgeon versus co-surgeon bilateral mastectomy: Comparing outcomes and costs based on health economic modeling from the perspective of the hospital system.

INTRODUCTION: Co-surgeon approach for bilateral mastectomy may lead to shorter operative times and improved outcomes compared with single-surgeon approach, but cost differences remain unclear. Economic models were applied to determine whether either approach offered a lower cost opportunity. METHODS: A retrospective review of 409 patients undergoing single-surgeon or co-surgeon bilateral mastectomy between January 1, 2010 through April 30, 2016 was conducted. Outcomes included narcotic and antinausea doses, length of stay (LOS), and operative time. Analyses stratified by reconstruction and no reconstruction included Wilcoxon tests, Poisson regression, generalized linear models, and a cost calculator. RESULTS: Of 409 patients, 310 had reconstruction and 99 had no reconstruction. Compared with single-surgeon approach, co-surgeon approach was associated with less operative time and shorter LOS (233 vs. 250 min and 1.0 vs. 1.8 days no reconstruction; and 429 vs. 493 min and 2.2 vs. 2.8 days reconstruction). Economic analysis demonstrated less operative time, shorter LOS, and lower average cost for co-surgeon approach ($32,400 vs. $34,400 no reconstruction; and $76,700 vs. $79,400 reconstruction). CONCLUSION: Compared with the single-surgeon, the co-surgeon approach with reconstruction was associated with a statistically significant decrease in operative time and LOS. Economic analysis estimated the co-surgeon approach could lead to lower costs.

Margin re-excision and local recurrence in invasive breast cancer: A cost analysis using a decision tree model.

BACKGROUND: SSO-ASTRO recently published guidelines defining adequate margins in breast conservation therapy (BCT) as no tumor on ink based on studies demonstrating little difference in local recurrence (LR) with wider margins. We hypothesize that not routinely re-excising close margins results in decreased costs without compromising care. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed for the management of margins after BCT for invasive cancer. Patients were compared among three margin status groups: positive, close (≤2 mm) and negative (>2 mm). Ten publications provided re-excision rates (RER) and LR rates. The model assumed 140,000 BCT/year. Sensitivity analyses determined the most cost-effective strategy. Surgical costs were estimated using 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates. RESULTS: Re-excising close margins was significantly more costly than the alternative, $233.1 million versus $214.3 million, per year in the United States. Total surgical cost was most sensitive to re-excision of close margins-increasing the RER from 0% to 100% resulted in an $18.8 million cost difference. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy of re-excising close margins resulted in a predicted cost of $18.8 million per year. This does not include hospital costs, the cost of surgical complications after re-excision, and underestimates the potential savings by using Medicare reimbursement rates.