Cost-Effectiveness of Radar Localisation Versus Wire Localisation for Wide Local Excision of Non-palpable Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Wire localisation (WL) is the "gold standard" localisation technique for wide local excision (WLE) of non-palpable breast lesions but has disadvantages that have led to the development of wireless techniques. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of radar localisation (RL) to WL. METHODS: This was a single-institution study of 110 prospective patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing WLE using RL with the SCOUT® Surgical Guidance System (2021-2023) compared with a cohort of 110 patients using WL. Margin status, re-excision rates, and surgery delays associated with preoperative localisation were compared. Costs from a third-party payer perspective in Australian dollars (AUD$) calculated by using microcosting, break-even point, and cost-utility analyses. RESULTS: A total of 110 WLEs using RL cost a total of AUD$402,281, in addition to the device cost of AUD$77,150. The average additional cost of a surgery delay was AUD$2318. Use of RL reduced the surgery delay rate by 10% (p = 0.029), preventing 11 delays with cost savings of AUD$25,496. No differences were identified in positive margin rates (RL: 11.8% vs. WL: 17.3%, p = 0.25) or re-excision rates (RL: 14.5% vs. WL: 21.8%, p = 0.221). In total, 290 RL cases are needed to break even. The cost of WLE using RL was greater than WL by AUD$567. There was a greater clinical benefit of 1.15 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and an incremental cost-utility ratio of AUD$493 per QALY favouring RL. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of RL was a more cost-effective intervention than WL. Close to 300 RL cases are likely needed to be performed to recover costs of the medical device. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12624000068561.

Contemporary Analysis of Reexcision and Conversion to Mastectomy Rates and Associated Healthcare Costs for Women Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of population-level reoperation rates and incremental healthcare costs associated with reoperation for patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using Merative™ MarketScan® commercial insurance data and Medicare 5% fee-for-service claims data. The study included females aged 18-64 years in the commercial cohort and females aged 18 years and older in the Medicare cohort, who underwent initial BCS for breast cancer in 2017-2019. Reoperation rates within a year of the initial BCS and overall 1-year healthcare costs stratified by reoperation status were measured. RESULTS: The commercial cohort included 17,129 women with a median age of 55 (interquartile range [IQR] 49-59) years, and the Medicare cohort included 6977 women with a median age of 73 (IQR 69-78) years. Overall reoperation rates were 21.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.5-21.8%) for the commercial cohort and 14.9% (95% CI 14.1-15.7%) for the Medicare cohort. In both cohorts, reoperation rates decreased as age increased, and conversion to mastectomy was more prevalent among younger women in the commercial cohort. The mean healthcare costs during 1 year of follow-up from the initial BCS were $95,165 for the commercial cohort and $36,313 for the Medicare cohort. Reoperations were associated with 24% higher costs in both the commercial and Medicare cohorts, which translated into $21,607 and $8559 incremental costs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of reoperation after BCS have remained high and have contributed to increased healthcare costs. Continuing efforts to reduce reoperation need more attention.

Local practice variations and payer differences underlie state-wide disparities in oncoplastic breast surgery.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about disparities in oncoplastic breast surgery delivery. METHODS: The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for patients who received lumpectomy for a diagnosis of breast cancer. Oncoplastic surgery was defined as adjacent tissue transfer, complex trunk repair, reduction mammoplasty, mastopexy, flap-based reconstruction, prosthesis insertion, or unspecified breast reconstruction after lumpectomy. RESULTS: We identified 18 748 patients who underwent lumpectomy between 2016 and 2020. Among those, 3140 patients underwent immediate oncoplastic surgery and 436 patients underwent delayed oncoplastic surgery. Eighty-one percent of patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery did so in the same county as they underwent a lumpectomy. However, the relative frequency of oncoplastic surgery varied significantly among counties. In multivariable regression, public insurance status (odds ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.95, p = 0.002) was associated with lower odds of undergoing oncoplastic surgery, even after adjusting for macromastia, other comorbidities, and county of lumpectomy. Average payments for lumpectomy with oncoplastic surgery were more than twice as high from private insurers ($840 vs. $1942, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Disparities in the receipt of oncoplastic surgery were related to differences in local practice patterns and the type of insurance patients held. Expanding services across counties and considering billing reform may help reduce these disparities.

Geographic Disparities and Payment Variation for Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about practice patterns and payments for immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR). This study aims to evaluate trends in ILR delivery and billing practices. METHODS: We queried the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database between 2016 and 2020 for patients who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection for oncologic indications. We further identified patients who underwent lymphovenous bypass on the same date as tumor resection. We used ZIP code data to analyze the geographic distribution of ILR procedures and calculated physician payments for these procedures, adjusting for inflation. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify variables, which predicted receipt of ILR. RESULTS: In total, 2862 patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection over the study period. Of these, 53 patients underwent ILR. Patients who underwent ILR were younger (55.1 vs 59.3 years, P = 0.023). There were no significant differences in obesity, diabetes, or smoking history between the two groups. A greater percentage of patients who underwent ILR had radiation (83% vs 67%, P = 0.027). In multivariable regression, patients residing in a county neighboring Boston had 3.32-fold higher odds of undergoing ILR (95% confidence interval: 1.76-6.25; P < 0.001), while obesity, radiation therapy, and taxane-based chemotherapy were not significant predictors. Payments for ILR varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: In Massachusetts, patients were more likely to undergo ILR if they resided near Boston. Thus, many patients with the highest known risk for breast cancer-related lymphedema may face barriers accessing ILR. Greater awareness about referring high-risk patients to plastic surgeons is needed.

Out-of-Pocket Cost Modeling of Adjuvant Antiestrogen and Radiation Therapy After Lumpectomy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans.

PURPOSE: The optimal adjuvant therapy (antiestrogen therapy [ET] + radiation therapy or ET alone, or in some reports radiation therapy alone) in older women with early-stage breast cancer has been highly debated. However, granular details on the role of insurance in the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving ET with or without radiation therapy are lacking. This project disaggregates out-of-pocket costs by insurance plans to increase treatment cost transparency. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several radiation therapy schedules are accepted standards as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For our financial estimate model, we used the 5-fraction and 15-fraction radiation therapy and ET prescribed over a 5-year duration. The total aggregate out-of-pocket costs were determined from the sum of treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance based on Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D Rx plans. The model assumes a Medicare- and/or Medicaid-eligible patient ≥70 years of age with node-negative, early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Patient out-of-pocket costs were estimated from publicly available insurance data from plan-specific benefit coverage materials using a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: Original Medicare beneficiaries face a total out-of-pocket treatment charge of $2738.52 for ET alone, $2221.26 for 5-fraction radiation therapy alone, $2573.92 for 15-fraction radiation therapy alone, $3361.26 for combined ET+ 5-fraction radiation therapy, and $3713.92 for combined ET + 15-fraction radiation therapy. Medigap Plan G beneficiaries have an out-of-pocket charge of $1130.00 with radiation therapy alone and face an out-of-pocket of $2270.00 for ET alone and combined ET+ radiation therapy. For Medicaid beneficiaries, all treatments approved by Medicaid are covered without limit, resulting in no out-of-pocket expense for either adjuvant treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data), by estimating expenses within Medicare and Medicaid plans, provides a level of transparency to patient cost. With knowledge of the costs borne by patients themselves, treatment decisions informed by patients' individual priorities and preferences may be further enhanced.

Oncoplastic approach in the conservative treatment of breast cancer: analysis of costs / Abordagem oncoplástica no tratamento conservador do câncer mamário: análise de custos

PURPOSE: To analyze the direct costs of conservative surgical treatment of breast cancer, performed in a university hospital, to the Brazilian National Health Care Public System (SUS), checking the impact of the oncoplastic approach on these costs. METHODS: One hundred thirty eight breast cancer patients who had undergone conservative treatment with oncoplastic approach (n=36) or not (control group, n=102), in the period from 2005 to 2010, were enrolled. Sociodemographic and clinical data were recorded. The direct costs of the surgical procedure were obtained and analyzed. RESULTS: Groups did not differ in regard to age (p=0.963), and patients in oncoplastic group had a longer time of hospital stay (p=0.000). The median direct cost for the oncoplastic group was R$461.00 and for the control group was R$229.00 (p=0.000). CONCLUSION: The oncoplastic approach has generated higher direct costs in conservative surgical treatment of breast cancer to SUS.

OBJETIVO: Analisar os custos diretos do tratamento cirúrgico conservador do câncer mamário, realizado pelo Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) em um hospital universitário, verificando o impacto da abordagem oncoplástica sobre estes custos. MÉTODOS: Foram incluídas 138 pacientes submetidas ao tratamento conservador do câncer mamário pelo SUS, com abordagem oncoplástica (n=36) ou não (grupo controle, n=102), no período de 2005 a 2010. Foram registrados dados sócio-demográficos e da operação. Os custos diretos do procedimento cirúrgico foram obtidos e analisados. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à idade (p=0.963), e o tempo de internação hospitalar foi maior no grupo oncoplástica (p=0,000). A mediana dos custos diretos do grupo oncoplástica foi de R$461,00 e do grupo controle foi de R$229,00 (p=0,000). CONCLUSÃO: A abordagem oncoplástica gerou custos diretos maiores para o tratamento cirúrgico conservador do câncer mamário pelo SUS.