The Impact of Breast Implant Cohesivity on Rippling and Revision Procedures in 2-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Background: Rippling remains one of the most common complications following prepectoral implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess how implant cohesivity, a measure of elasticity and form stability, affects the incidence of rippling in prepectoral IBR. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 2-stage prepectoral IBR performed between January 2020 and June 2022 at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comparing outcomes in patients who received Allergan Natrelle least cohesive, moderately cohesive, and most cohesive silicone gel implants. Outcomes of interest were rippling and reoperation for fat grafting. Results: A total of 129 patients were identified, of whom 52 had the least cohesive implants, 24 had the moderately cohesive implants, and 53 patients had the most cohesive implants. The mean follow-up time was 463 (±220) days. A decreased incidence of rippling was seen with moderately cohesive (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P < .05) and most cohesive (OR 0.39, P < .05) implants. Third stage reoperation for fat grafting was less frequent in patients with the most cohesive implant (OR 0.07, P < .05). In subgroup analyses, the patients with the most cohesive implant, who did not receive fat grafting at the time of initial implant placement, did not require reoperation for fat grafting (0%). Conclusions: The use of highly cohesive implants in prepectoral IBR is associated with decreased rippling and fewer reoperations for fat grafting.

The Use of Unlisted Billing Codes for Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction and Implications for Code Consolidation.

BACKGROUND: Private insurers have considered consolidating the billing codes presently available for microvascular breast reconstruction. There is a need to understand how these different codes are currently distributed and used to help inform how coding consolidation may impact patients and providers. METHODS: Using the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database between 2016 and 2020, patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction following mastectomy for cancer-related indications were identified. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test whether an S2068 claim was associated with insurance type and median household income by patient ZIP code. The ratio of S2068 to CPT19364 claims for privately insured patients was calculated for providers practicing in each county. Total payments for professional fees were compared between billing codes. RESULTS: There were 272 claims for S2068 and 209 claims for CPT19364. An S2068 claim was associated with age < 45 years (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.11-3.20, p = 0.019), more affluent ZIP codes (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.19, p = 0.004), and private insurance (OR: 16.13, 95% CI: 7.81-33.33, p < 0.001). Median total payments from private insurers were 101% higher for S2068 than for CPT19364. In all but two counties (Worcester and Hampshire), the S-code was used more frequently than CPT19364 for their privately insured patients. CONCLUSION: Coding practices for microsurgical breast reconstruction lacked uniformity in Massachusetts, and payments differed greatly between S2068 and CPT19364. Patients from more affluent towns were more likely to have S-code claims. Coding consolidation could impact access, as the majority of providers in Massachusetts might need to adapt their practices if the S-code were discontinued.

Preoperative Risk Factors for Lymphedema in Inflammatory Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic lymphatic bypass or LYMPHA (LYmphatic Microsurgical Preventive Healing Approach) is increasingly offered to prevent lymphedema following breast cancer treatment, which develops in up to 47% of patients. Previous studies focused on intraoperative and postoperative lymphedema risk factors, which are often unknown preoperatively when the decision to perform LYMPHA is made. This study aims to identify preoperative lymphedema risk factors in the high-risk inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) population. METHODS: Retrospective review of our institution's IBC program database was conducted. The primary outcome was self-reported lymphedema development. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify preoperative lymphedema risk factors, while controlling for number of lymph nodes removed during axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), number of positive lymph nodes, residual disease on pathology, and need for adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of 356 patients with IBC, 134 (mean age: 51 years, range: 22-89 years) had complete data. All 134 patients underwent surgery and radiation. Forty-seven percent of all 356 patients (167/356) developed lymphedema. Obesity (body mass index > 30) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7, confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-6.4, p = 0.02) and non-white race (OR: 4.5, CI: 1.2-23, p = 0.04) were preoperative lymphedema risk factors. CONCLUSION: Patients with IBC are high risk for developing lymphedema due to the need for ALND, radiation, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study also identified non-white race and obesity as risk factors. Larger prospective studies should evaluate potential racial disparities in lymphedema development. Due to the high prevalence of lymphedema, LYMPHA should be considered for all patients with IBC.

In-person, Hybrid, and Virtual Grand Rounds in Plastic Surgery: Impact and Participant Perceptions.

Many plastic surgery residency programs adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic by implementing virtual grand rounds. This study aimed to assess the impact of virtual grand rounds and how attendees perceived virtual grand rounds to inform future programmatic planning. Methods: This was a quality improvement initiative involving a cross-sectional survey and retrospective review of administrative records for the 2017-2018 (in-person) and 2021-2022 (virtual) academic years for two academic plastic surgery training programs in Boston, MA. Respondents were residents, fellows, and faculty within the two multisite plastic surgery residency training programs. Results: There were 39 respondents (51% faculty, 41% residents, and 8% fellows). There was no evidence of different preferences for the format of future grand rounds (P = 0.08), with most preferring hybrid, defined as in person for speakers and others who could attend. Most respondents indicated a more accessible learning environment (86.8%) and lack of in-person interaction (82.1%) as reasons for liking and not liking virtual grand rounds, respectively. Excluding outliers, attendance in 2021-2022 was on average 7.4% points greater than that in 2017-2018 (P < 0.001), or six to seven more individuals at each session. There were significantly more out-of-state speakers in 2021-2022 (84%) as compared to 2017-2018 (28%) (P = 0.0008). Conclusions: Virtual grand rounds improved attendance and the geographic diversity of speakers. Attendees preferred a hybrid format for future grand rounds, citing advantages and disadvantages to both in-person and virtual formats.

Cost communication in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: Public perceptions in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to better understand the financial toxicity of surgery on patients. Recent data demonstrated that plastic surgeons seldom discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients. Not much is known regarding the public perceptions of out-of-pocket cost communication in reconstructive and cosmetic breast surgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to adult women in the United States from November 2021 to December 2021 using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Perceptions regarding cost communication in plastic surgery were gathered. Incomplete responses were excluded. Multivariable models were used to identify predictors of responses. RESULTS: There were 512 complete responses. Respondents had a mean age of 37.4 years. The majority strongly agreed or agreed that plastic surgeons should discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction (85%), plastic surgeons should know the impact of surgery on patients' financial well-being (78%), and discussing costs was the most important aspect of the appointment (70%). Respondents who were unsure of their insurance status had lower odds of strongly agreeing or agreeing that surgeons should discuss out-of-pocket costs for autologous reconstruction (OR 0.12, CI 0.02-0.58, p = 0.01) and cosmetic breast augmentation (OR 0.14, CI 0.03-0.65, p = 0.01). Privately insured respondents had greater odds of strongly agreeing or agreeing to both, respectively (OR 2.21, CI 1.32-3.82, p < 0.01; OR 1.94, CI 1.17-3.31, p = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Many laywomen support the cost communication in plastic surgery and believe that plastic surgeons should know the impact of surgery on the patients' financial well-being, with variability among the sociodemographic groups. Plastic surgeons should strongly consider discussing costs with patients undergoing breast surgery.

Healthcare Value in Plastic Surgery Practice.

BRIEF SUMMARY: As value-based care gains traction in response to towering healthcare expenditures and issues of healthcare inequity, hospital capacity, and labor shortages, it is important to consider how a value-based approach can be achieved in plastic surgery. Value is defined as outcomes divided by costs across entire cycles of care. Drawing on previous studies and policies, this paper identifies key opportunities in plastic surgery to move the levers of costs and outcomes to deliver higher-value care. Specifically, outcomes in plastic surgery should include conventional measures of complication rates as well as patient-reported outcome measures in order to drive quality improvement and benchmark payments. Meanwhile, cost reduction in plastic surgery can be achieved through value-based payment reform, efficient workflows, evidence-based and cost-conscious selection of medical devices, and greater use of out-patient surgical facilities. Lastly, we discuss how the diminished presence of third-party payers in aesthetic surgery exemplifies the cost-conscious and patient-centered nature of value-based plastic surgery. To lead in future health policy and care delivery reform, plastic surgeons should strive for high-value care, remain open to new ways of care delivery, and understand how plastic surgery fits into overall health care delivery.

Value of Ambulatory Modified Radical Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) still is largely performed in inpatient settings. This study sought to determine the value (expenditures and complications) of ambulatory MRM. METHODS: Health Care Utilization Project (HCUP) state databases from 2016 were queried for patients who underwent MRM. The study examined rates of 30-day readmission for surgical-site infection (SSI) or hematoma, charges by index care setting, and predictors of 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Overall, 8090 patients underwent MRM: 5113 (63 %) inpatient and 2977 (37 %) ambulatory patients. Compared with the patients who underwent inpatient MRM, those who underwent ambulatory MRM were older (61 vs. 59 years), more often white (66 % vs. 57 %), in the lowest income quartile (28 % vs. 21 %), insured by Medicare (43 % vs. 33 %) and residents in a small metro area (6 % vs. 4 %) (all p < 0.01). Of the 5113 patients treated as inpatients, 126 (2.5 %) were readmitted, whereas 50 (1.7 %) of the ambulatory patients were readmitted (p = 0.02). The adjusted charge for inpatient MRM without readmission was $113,878 (range, $107,355-120,402) compared with $94,463 (range, $86,021-102,907) for ambulatory MRM, and the charge for inpatient MRM requiring readmission was $159,355 (range, $147,142-171,568) compared with $139,940 (range, $125,808-154,073) for ambulatory MRM (all p < 0.01). This difference remained significant after adjustment for hospital length of stay. Adjusted logistic regression showed that the ambulatory setting was protective for readmission (odds ratio, 0.49; 95 % confidence interval, 0.35-0.70; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The analyses suggest that ambulatory MRM is both safe and less expensive. The findings advocate that MRM, a last holdout of inpatient care within breast surgical oncology, can be transitioned to the ambulatory setting for appropriate patients.

Optimal Timing of Delayed Microvascular Breast Reconstruction after Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal timing of delayed microvascular breast reconstruction after completion of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). The authors evaluated whether the timing of reconstruction after PMRT completion affects the development of major postoperative complications. We hypothesize that delayed microvascular breast reconstruction can be safely performed within 12 months of PMRT completion. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of microvascular, autologous breast reconstructions at Brigham and Women's Hospital from 2007 to 2019 was performed. Logistic regression analysis and marginal estimation methods were used to estimate the probability of any major complication (flap compromise requiring operative intervention, hematoma formation requiring evacuation, infection requiring readmission, and flap necrosis requiring operative debridement) occurring in 2-month intervals after PMRT. Patients were classified as having undergone reconstruction 0 to 12 months after PMRT (group 1), 12 to 18 months after PMRT (group 2), or 18 to 50 months after PMRT (group 3). RESULTS: A total of 303 patients were identified. All patients received postmastectomy radiation (n = 143 group 1, n = 57 group 2, n = 103 group 3). Mean follow-up time was 71.4 ± 38 months. Patients in group 1 were significantly younger and more likely to have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.05). Major complications occurred in 10% of patients. There was no significant difference in the development of major complications between the three groups (p = 0.57). Although not statistically significant, the probability of any major complication peaked 2 to 6 months after PMRT completion. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in major complications among patients who underwent delayed, microvascular breast reconstruction within versus beyond 1 year of PMRT completion. These findings suggest that delayed microvascular breast reconstruction can be safely performed beginning 6 months after PMRT completion.

Is nerve coaptation associated with improved sensation after microvascular breast reconstruction? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sensation after autologous breast reconstruction is an increasingly important outcome. Several studies demonstrated improved sensation with flap neurotization but utilized heterogenous measures and follow-up intervals. This review evaluates sensory outcomes after neurotization using uniform, objective outcome measurements. METHODS: PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were queried for articles published between January 1990 and January 2022. Inclusion criteria included studies with free flap tissue transfer breast reconstruction patients and use of Semmes-Weinstein Monofilaments (SWM) to quantify return of sensation after either neurotization or no neurotization. Reviews, case reports, and studies utilizing implants or pedicled flaps were excluded. RESULTS: Overall, 513 articles were screened. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria for a total of 474 patients. There were 254 non-neurotized patients included as controls (Group A) and 220 neurotized patients (Group B). Mean follow-up time was similar in both groups (22.06 months vs. 22.78 months, p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in age (Group A = 49.97 years vs. Group B = 42.47 years) or BMI (Group A = 25.48 vs. Group B = 25.97) between groups. More patients in group B received radiation therapy (Group B = 32.72% vs. Group A = 20.86%, p > 0.05). Patients that received neurotization had lower mean pressure thresholds (Group A = 38.85 gm/mm2 vs. Group B = 6.69 gm/mm2 , p = 0.053) than comorbidity-matched controls. CONCLUSION: Neurotization has been shown to be a safe and feasible option for enhancing return of sensation after breast reconstruction. Future studies with standardized, long-term follow-up will further elucidate the pattern of breast sensation return and the impact of neurotization.

A Narrative Review of Plastic Surgery and Climate Change: Context and Considerations.

Climate change poses significant threats to human health and society. Although healthcare will bear a large burden of the downstream effects of climate change, the healthcare industry is simultaneously a major contributor to climate change. Within hospitals, surgery is one of the most energy-intensive practices. There is a growing body of literature describing ways to mitigate and adapt to climate change in surgery. However, there is a need to better understand the unique implications for each surgical subspecialty. This review contextualizes plastic and reconstructive surgery within the climate change discussion. In particular, this review highlights the specific ways in which plastic surgery may affect climate change and how climate change may affect plastic surgery. In light of growing public demand for change and greater alignment between industries and nations with regard to climate change solutions, we also offer a conceptual framework to guide further work in this burgeoning field of research.

Public Perceptions of Breast Implant Complications and the FDA Boxed Warning on Implants.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning on breast implants in October 2021, requiring communication of certain risks to patients. This study assessed how this boxed warning may impact public perceptions of breast implants. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to adult women in the United States in December 2021 using Amazon Mechanical Turk to assess perceptions of breast implant risks communicated in the FDA-issued guidance. Sociodemographic predictors of responses were identified using multivariable models. Results: There were 494 complete responses. Respondents had a mean age of 36.9 years, and 80% had an associate's degree or higher. At baseline, most would consider receiving implants for reconstructive or cosmetic purposes (65%). Some were unsure or indicated that it is not possible to undergo mammograms after receiving implants (42%). After provided information in the FDA guidance, the majority strongly agreed or agreed that they were less likely to receive implants knowing the risk of anaplastic large cell lymphoma (75%), because implants contain chemicals/heavy metals (74%), and because implants are not lifetime devices (68%), with greater odds among Hispanic respondents (OR, 2.35; P < 0.01) and lower odds among higher-income respondents (OR, 0.64; P = 0.03). Conclusions: There are misconceptions with regard to breast implant-associated risks. Despite most laywomen indicating that they would consider receiving implants at baseline, the risks communicated in the 2021 FDA boxed warning may make patients less likely to receive implants, with variability among different sociodemographic populations.

Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Healthcare has a major impact on climate change, and surgery is among the most energy-intensive hospital practices. Although most Americans believe climate change is happening, little is known regarding public awareness of the impact of healthcare on climate change and how this may impact perceptions of plastic surgery. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to adults in the United States using Amazon Mechanical Turk in December 2021 to assess public perceptions of climate change, healthcare, and plastic surgery. Incomplete responses were excluded from analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of responses. Results: There were 890 complete responses. Most participants strongly agreed or agreed that climate change is happening (89%). Fewer believed that healthcare has an impact on climate change (62%), with greater odds among respondents with an associate's degree or higher (odds ratio 2.8, P < 0.001). After they were given information about the impact of healthcare on climate change, most respondents were more worried about the effects of cosmetic plastic surgery (64%). Many respondents would be willing to engage in personal climate change mitigation measures if undergoing surgery and pay higher professional fees to support sustainable hospital practices. Conclusions: Most Americans believe climate change is happening, but fewer believe healthcare has an impact on climate change. Knowledge regarding the impact of healthcare and surgery on climate change may make patients more worried about the effects of plastic surgery on climate change, but patients may be willing to personally mitigate climate impacts of surgery.

Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomographic Reverse Lymphatic Mapping for Groin Vascularized Lymph Node Transplant Planning.

BACKGROUND: Superficial inguinal (groin) vascularized lymph node transplantation is the most common option for the treatment of lymphedema, particularly in combination with free abdominal flap breast reconstruction. This study examines the utility of single-photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT/CT) lymphoscintigraphy for lower extremity reverse lymphatic mapping in presurgical planning for groin vascularized lymph node transplantation and appraises the physiologic lymphatic drainage to the superficial inguinal lymph nodes. METHODS: All patients who underwent bilateral lower extremity SPECT/CT reverse lymphatic mapping over a 5-year period were included. Retrospective case note analysis was performed to collect demographic, surgical, and outcomes data. RESULTS: The study included 84 patients; 56 of these subsequently underwent groin vascularized lymph node transplantation (58 flaps). Fifty-four of these flaps were combined with free abdominal flaps for breast reconstruction (55 flaps). Using SPECT/CT reverse lymphatic mapping investigation of 168 inguinal regions, drainage to at least one superficial inguinal region was visualized in 38.1 percent of patients; in 13.1 percent, drainage was visualized to both superficial inguinal regions. Using this information for presurgical planning, groin vascularized lymph node flap harvest was performed from the contralateral side in 57 of 58 cases (98.3 percent) using intraoperative gamma probe guidance, and no patient developed donor lower extremity lymphedema during follow-up (mean ± SD, 34.5 ± 15.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: The authors' use of presurgical SPECT/CT reverse lymphatic mapping together with limited flap dissection and intraoperative gamma probe guidance resulted in no clinical cases of iatrogenic donor lower extremity lymphedema. The high incidence of drainage from the lower extremity to the superficial inguinal region mandates the use of reverse lymphatic mapping when performing groin vascularized lymph node transplantation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Women undergoing implant-based reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for breast cancer have numerous options, including timing of IBR relative to radiation and chemotherapy, implant materials, anatomic planes, and use of human acellular dermal matrices. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate these options. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies, from inception to March 23, 2021, without language restriction. We assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods. Results: We screened 15,936 citations. Thirty-six mostly high or moderate risk of bias studies (48,419 patients) met criteria. Timing of IBR before or after radiation may result in comparable physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being, and satisfaction with breasts (all low SoE), and probably comparable risks of implant failure/loss or explantation (moderate SoE). No studies addressed timing relative to chemotherapy. Silicone and saline implants may result in clinically comparable satisfaction with breasts (low SoE). Whether the implant is in the prepectoral or total submuscular plane may not impact risk of infections (low SoE). Acellular dermal matrix use probably increases the risk of implant failure/loss or need for explant surgery (moderate SoE) and may increase the risk of infections (low SoE). Risks of seroma and unplanned repeat surgeries for revision are probably comparable (moderate SoE), and risk of necrosis may be comparable with or without human acellular dermal matrices (low SoE). Conclusions: Evidence regarding IBR options is mostly of low SoE. New high-quality research is needed, especially for timing, implant materials, and anatomic planes of implant placement.

Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer.

Background: Women undergoing autologous reconstruction (AR) after mastectomy for breast cancer and their surgeons must make decisions regarding timing of the AR and choose among various flap types. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of (1) timing of AR relative to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and (2) various flap types for AR. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies, from inception to March 23, 2021, without language restriction. We assessed risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods. Results: We screened 15,936 citations. Twelve mostly high risk of bias studies, including three randomized controlled trials and nine nonrandomized comparative studies met criteria (total N = 31,833 patients). No studies addressed timing of AR relative to chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Six flap types were compared, but conclusions were feasible for only the comparison between transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. The choice of either flap may result in comparable patient satisfaction with breasts and comparable risk of necrosis (low SoE for both outcomes), but TRAM flaps probably pose a greater risk of harm to the area of flap harvest (abdominal bulge/hernia and need for surgical repair) (moderate SoE). Conclusions: Evidence regarding details for AR is mostly of low SoE. New high-quality research among diverse populations of women is needed for the issue of timing of AR and for comparisons among flap types.

Implant-based versus Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR) are not well known. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of IBR versus AR after mastectomy for breast cancer. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from inception to March 23, 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods. Results: We screened 15,936 citations and included 40 studies (two randomized controlled trials and 38 adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies). Compared with patients who undergo IBR, those who undergo AR experience clinically significant better sexual well-being [summary adjusted mean difference (adjMD) 5.8, 95% CI 3.4-8.2; three studies] and satisfaction with breasts (summary adjMD 8.1, 95% CI 6.1-10.1; three studies) (moderate SoE for both outcomes). AR was associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (moderate SoE), but IBR was associated with a greater risk of reconstructive failure (moderate SoE) and seroma (low SoE) in long-term follow-up (1.5-4 years). Other outcomes were comparable between groups, or the evidence was insufficient to merit conclusions. Conclusions: Most evidence regarding IBR versus AR is of low or moderate SoE. AR is probably associated with better sexual well-being and satisfaction with breasts and lower risks of seroma and long-term reconstructive failure but a higher risk of thromboembolic events. New high-quality research is needed to address the important research gaps.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Breast Cancer Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of healthcare costs is required to assess and improve the value of oncology care. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the cost of breast cancer care provision across collaborating health care organizations. METHODS: We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to calculate the complete cost of breast cancer care-initial treatment planning, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgical resection and reconstruction, and ancillary services (e.g., psychosocial oncology, physical therapy)-across multiple hospital sites. Data were collected between December 2019 and February 2020. TDABC steps involved (1) developing process maps for care delivery pathways; (2) determine capacity cost rates for staff, medical equipment, and hospital space; (3) measure the time required for each process step, both manually through clinic observation and using data from the Real-Time Location System (RTLS); and (4) calculate the total cost of care delivery. RESULTS: Surgical care costs ranged from $1431 for a lumpectomy to $12,129 for a mastectomy with prepectoral implant reconstruction. Radiation therapy was costed at $1224 for initial simulation and patient education, and $200 for each additional treatment. Base costs for chemotherapy delivery were $382 per visit, with additional costs driven by chemotherapy agent(s) administered. Personnel expenses were the greatest contributor to the cost of surgical care, except in mastectomy with implant reconstruction, where device costs equated to up to 60% of the cost of surgery. CONCLUSION: The cost of complete breast cancer care depended on (1) treatment protocols; (2) patient choice of reconstruction; and (3) the need for ancillary services (e.g., physical therapy). Understanding the actual costs and cost drivers of breast cancer care delivery may better inform resource utilization to lower the cost and improve the quality of care.