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.

[Episode-based bundled payment model: evaluation of medical costs for early operable breast cancer]. / Financement à l'épisode de soins : évaluation du coût d'une chirurgie première pour cancer du sein précoce.

INTRODUCTION: Episode-based bundled payment model is actually opposing to fee-for-service model, intending to incentivize coordinated care. The aims of these study were to determine episode-based costs for surgery in early breast cancer patients and to propose a payment model. METHODS: OPTISOINS01 was a multicenter prospective study including early breast cancer patients from diagnosis to one-year follow up. Direct medical costs, quality and patient reported outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Data from 604 patients were analyzed. Episode-based costs for surgery were higher in case of: planned radical surgery (OR=9,47 ; IC95 % [3,49-28,01]; P<0,001), hospitalization during more than one night (OR=6,73; IC95% [2,59-17,46]; P<0,001), home hospitalization (OR=11,07 ; IC95 % [3,01-173][3,01-54][3,01-543][3,01-54,33]; P<0,001) and re-hospitalization (OR=25,71 ; IC95 % [9,24-89,17; P<0,001). The average cost was 5 268 € [2 947-18 461] when a lumpectomy was planned and 7408 € [4 222-22 565] in case of radical mastectomy. Bootstrap method was applied for internal validation of the cost model showing the reliability of the model with an area under the curve of 0,83 (95 % CI [0,80-0,86]). Care quality and patient reported outcomes were not related to the costs. DISCUSSION: This is the first report of episode-based costs for breast cancer surgery. An external validation will be necessary to validate our payment model.

Relationship Between Financial Toxicity and Surgical Treatment for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Breast-Conserving Therapy and Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity (FT) can lead to decreased quality of life and poor treatment outcomes. However, there is limited published data on the extent to which the various surgical treatment approaches for early-stage breast cancer are determinants for FT. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a single-institution cross-sectional survey of adult female patients with stage 0 to II breast cancer undergoing unilateral breast-conserving therapy or unilateral mastectomy. FT was measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) survey. Propensity matching was performed to optimize comparability of study groups. A multivariate regression model was used to identify factors associated with worsening FT as a robustness check. Our secondary end point was prevalence of coping strategies associated with cost of cancer care. RESULTS: Among 294 patients who met inclusion criteria, 203 underwent breast-conserving therapy and 91 received mastectomy. We generated 72 total matched pairs and noted no differences in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Of these, 55 pairs had complete COST information, which was comparable on adjusted analysis (26.6 vs 24.7; p = 0.481). High annual income (ß = 4.83; p < 0.001) and supplemental insurance (ß = 5.37; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher COST scores, while change in employment status (ß = -4.81; p < 0.001) correlated significantly with lower COST scores. No significant differences were observed in coping strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Choice of BCT or mastectomy was not associated with a differential risk for FT in early-stage cancer. Decisions on ablative approach should be made based on patient preferences and disease-specific criteria. Transparent counseling on FT for high-risk populations promotes patient-centricity.

Breast-Conserving Surgeries With and Without Cavity Shave Margins Have Different Re-excision Rates and Associated Overall Cost: Institutional and Patient-Driven Decisions for Its Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the rate of margin positivity and reoperations remains a paramount goal in breast-conserving surgery (BCS). This study assesses the effectiveness of standard partial mastectomy with cavity shave margins (CSM) compared with partial mastectomy with selective margin resection (SPM), with regard to outcomes of the initial surgeries, re-excisions, and overall costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 122 eligible breast cancer patients who underwent BCS at one institution. The CSM and SPM groups each included 61 patients, matched for presurgical diagnoses and clinical stage. Data including margin status, rates and reason for re-excision, associated operation times, and costs were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients undergoing CSM had less than half the rate of positive margins (PMs) (10% vs. 23%; P = .03) and re-excisions (8% vs. 23%; P = .02) compared with SPM. In the former group, the margin involvement was focal, and re-excisions were performed almost exclusively for PMs. For SPM, the majority (92%) of PMs were on the main lumpectomy specimen rather than the selective margins, and re-excisions included, in addition to PMs, extensive or multifocal negative but close margins. Reduced breast tissue volumes were removed with CSM, particularly for patients undergoing a single surgery (47 vs. 165 cm3; P < .001). The initial surgery with CSM is on average 27% more costly than that for SPM (P < .001), due to the increased pathology costs which are partially offset by the increased re-excision rates in SPM. CONCLUSION: Circumferential cavity shaving, associated with consistent lower PMs, tissue volumes excised, and re-excision rates, is appropriate for routine implementation as a method offering superior surgical outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of different surgical treatment approaches for early breast cancer: a retrospective matched cohort study from China.

BACKGROUND: Both breast-conserving surgery and breast reconstruction surgery are less popular in China, although they can improve patients' quality of life. The main reason comes from the economy. There is currently no economic evaluation of different surgical treatment options for early breast cancer. Our study aims to assess the economic impact and long-term cost-effectiveness of different surgical treatments for early breast cancer. The surgical approaches are including mastectomy (MAST), breast-conserving therapy (BCT), and mastectomy with reconstruction (MAST+RECON). METHODS: Based on demographic data, disease-related information and other treatments, we applied propensity score matching (PSM) to perform 1: 1 matching among patients who underwent these three types of surgery in the tertiary academic medical center from 2011 to 2017 to obtain a balanced sample of covariates between groups. A Markov model was established. Clinical data and cost data were obtained from the medical records. Health utility values were derived from clinical investigations. Strategies were compared using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: After PSM, there were 205 cases in each group. In the matched data set, the distribution of covariates was fully balanced. The total cost of MAST, MAST+RECON and BCT was $37,392.84, $70,556.03 and $82,330.97, respectively. The quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) were 17.11, 18.40 and 20.20, respectively. Compared with MAST, MAST+RECON and BCT have an ICER of $25,707.90/QALY and $14,543.08/QALY, respectively. The ICER of BCT vs. MAST was less than the threshold of $27,931.04. The reliability and stability of the results were confirmed by Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that in the context of the limited resources in China, after comparing the three surgical approaches, BCT is the more cost-effective and preferred solution.

Cost-effectiveness of radioguided occult lesion localization using 125I seeds versus hookwire localization before breast-conserving surgery for non-palpable breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to determine the cost-effectiveness of radioguided occult lesion localization using 125I-labelled seeds (125I seeds) versus hookwire localization in terms of incremental cost per reoperation avoided for women with non-palpable breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery. METHODS: This study was based on a multicentre RCT with eight study sites comprising seven public hospitals and one private hospital. An Australian public health system perspective was taken. The primary effectiveness outcome for this study was reoperations avoided. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore uncertainty. The willingness to pay (additional cost of localization using 125I seeds justified by reoperation cost avoided) was set at the weighted, top-down cost of reoperation. Costs were in 2019 Australian dollars ($1 was equivalent to €0.62). RESULTS: The reoperation rate was 13.9 (95 per cent confidence interval 10.7 to 18.0) per cent for the 125I seed group and 18.9 (14.8 to 23.8) per cent for the hookwire localization group. The ICER for 125I seed versus hookwire localization was $4474 per reoperation averted. The results were most sensitive to uncertainty around the probability of reoperation. Accounting for transition probability and cost uncertainty for 125I seed localization, there was a 77 per cent probability that using 125I seeds would be cost-effective, with a willingness to pay of $7693 per reoperation averted. CONCLUSION: Radioguided occult lesion localization using 125I seeds is likely to be cost-effective, because the marginal (additional) cost compared with hookwire localization is less than the cost of reoperations avoided.

Cost-utility analysis of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer: mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy (BCT), implant breast reconstruction (BR) and autologous-BR. METHODS: Patient-level healthcare consumption data and results of a large quality of life (QoL) study from five Dutch hospitals were combined. The cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10-year follow-up period. Costs were assessed from a healthcare provider perspective. RESULTS: BCT resulted in comparable QoL with lower costs compared to implant-BR and autologous-BR and showed better QoL with higher costs than mastectomy (€17,246/QALY). QoL outcomes and costs of especially autologous-BR were affected by the relatively high occurrence of complications. If reconstruction following mastectomy was performed, implant-BR was more cost-effective than autologous-BR. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of complications had a substantial effect on costs and QoL outcomes of different surgical pathways for breast cancer. When this was taken into account, BCT was most the cost-effective treatment. Even with higher costs and a higher risk of complications, implant-BR and autologous-BR remained cost-effective over mastectomy. This pleas for adapting surgical pathways to individual patient preferences in the trade-off between the risks of complications and expected outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biological Signature DCISionRT Use for DCIS Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Currently it remains difficult to identify patients most likely to benefit from radiotherapy (RT) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), thus leading to wide variation in practice patterns. The genomic risk assessment tool DCISionRT (PreludeDX) has been validated to prognosticate recurrence risk and predict RT benefit. We aimed to study the cost-effectiveness analysis comparing DCIS treatments based on DCISionRT testing to traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov state transition model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing breast-conserving surgery with or without RT using DCISionRT testing vs. traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. Clinical parameters were obtained from clinical trial data and cross-validation studies. Cost data were based on 2019 Medicare reimbursement. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained comparing DCIS treatments using DCISionRT testing to traditional clinicopathologic risk factors and evaluated with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per QALY gained. To account for uncertainty, 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Base case analysis showed that DCIS management using DCISionRT testing was a cost-effective strategy, resulting in an ICER of $74,331 per QALY gained compared to clinicopathology-based treatment. Model results were sensitive to a variation of the proportion of genomic-high, low-risk patients receiving RT in DCISionRT testing strategy, and changes in DCISionRT testing cost. CONCLUSION: DCISionRT testing could potentially be a cost-effective strategy compared to traditional decision making for DCIS treatments, optimizing RT benefit based on an accurate recurrence risk assessment.

Clinical outcomes of patients after nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction based on the expander/implant technique.

Advances in multi-modality treatments incorporating systemic chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and radiotherapy for the management of breast cancer have resulted in a surgical-management paradigm change toward less-aggressive surgery that combines the use of breast-conserving or -reconstruction therapy as a new standard of care with a higher emphasis on cosmesis. The implementation of skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomies (SSM, NSM) has been shown to be oncologically safe, and breast reconstructive surgery is being performed increasingly for patients with breast cancer. NSM and breast reconstruction can also be performed as prophylactic or risk-reduction surgery for women with BRCA gene mutations. Compared with conventional breast construction followed by total mastectomy (TM), NSM preserving the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) with breast reconstruction provides psychosocial and aesthetic benefits, thereby improving patients' cosmetic appearance and body image. Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) has been used worldwide following mastectomy as a safe and cost-effective method of breast reconstruction. We review the clinical evidence about immediate (one-stage) and delayed (two-stage) IBBR after NSM. Our results suggest that the postoperative complication rate may be higher after NSM followed by IBBR than after TM or SSM followed by IBBR.

Preoperative localisation techniques in breast conservative surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The preoperative localisation of non-palpable lesions guided by breast imaging is an important and required procedure for breast-conserving surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the comparative impact of different techniques for guided surgical excision of non-palpable breast lesions from reports of clinical or patient-reported outcomes and costs. A literature search of PubMed, ISI, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted for relevant publications and their references, along with public documents, national and international guidelines, conference proceedings and presentations. From 5720 retrieved articles screened through title and abstract, 5346 were excluded and 374 assessed for full-text eligibility. For data extraction and quality assessment, 49 studies were included. Results of this review demonstrate that Radioactive Seed Localisation (RSL) and Radioactive Occult Lesion Localisation (ROLL) outperform Wire in terms of involved margins and reoperations. Between RSL and ROLL, there is a tendency to favour RSL. Similarly, Clip-guided localisation seems preferred when compared to ROLL, however further studies are needed. In summary, there seems to exist evidence that RSL and ROLL are better than Wire, representing potential alternatives, with a quick learning curve, better scheduling and management issues. Although, for recent techniques, more research is needed in order to achieve the same level of evidence.

Early budget impact analysis on magnetic seed localization for non-palpable breast cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Current localization techniques used in breast conserving surgery for non-palpable tumors show several disadvantages. Magnetic Seed Localization (MSL) is an innovative localization technique aiming to overcome these disadvantages. This study evaluated the expected budget impact of adopting MSL compared to standard of care. METHODS: Standard of care with Wire-Guided Localization (WGL) and Radioactive Seed Localization (RSL) use was compared with a future situation gradually adopting MSL next to RSL or WGL from a Dutch national perspective over 5 years (2017-2022). The intervention costs for WGL, RSL and MSL and the implementation costs for RSL and MSL were evaluated using activity-based costing in eight Dutch hospitals. Based on available list prices the price of the magnetic seed was ranged €100-€500. RESULTS: The intervention costs for WGL, RSL and MSL were respectively: €2,617, €2,834 and €2,662 per patient and implementation costs were €2,974 and €26,826 for MSL and RSL respectively. For standard of care the budget impact increased from €14.7m to €16.9m. Inclusion of MSL with a seed price of €100 showed a budget impact of €16.7m. Above a price of €178 the budget impact increased for adoption of MSL, rising to €17.6m when priced at €500. CONCLUSION: MSL could be a cost-efficient localization technique in resecting non-palpable tumors in the Netherlands. The online calculation model can inform adoption decisions internationally. When determining retail price of the magnetic seed, cost-effectiveness should be considered.

Intensity modulated radiation therapy following lumpectomy in early-stage breast cancer: Patterns of use and cost consequences among Medicare beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: In 2013, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) issued a Choosing Wisely recommendation against the routine use of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for whole breast irradiation. We evaluated IMRT use and subsequent impact on Medicare expenditure in the period immediately preceding this recommendation to provide a baseline measure of IMRT use and associated cost consequences. METHODS AND MATERIALS: SEER records for women ≥66 years with first primary diagnosis of Stage I/II breast cancer (2008-2011) were linked with Medicare claims (2007-2012). Eligibility criteria included lumpectomy within 6 months of diagnosis and radiotherapy within 6 months of lumpectomy. We evaluated IMRT versus conventional radiotherapy (cRT) use overall and by SEER registry (12 sites). We used generalized estimating equations logit models to explore adjusted odds ratios (OR) for associations between clinical, sociodemographic, and health services characteristics and IMRT use. Mean costs were calculated from Medicare allowable costs in the year after diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 13,037 women, mean age was 74.4, 50.5% had left-sided breast cancer, and 19.8% received IMRT. IMRT use varied from 0% to 52% across SEER registries. In multivariable analysis, left-sided breast cancer (OR 1.75), living in a big metropolitan area (OR 2.39), living in a census tract with ≤$90,000 median income (OR 1.75), neutral or favorable local coverage determination (OR 3.86, 1.72, respectively), and free-standing treatment facility (OR 3.49) were associated with receipt of IMRT (p<0.001). Mean expenditure in the year after diagnosis was $8,499 greater (p<0.001) among women receiving IMRT versus cRT. CONCLUSION: We found highly variable use of IMRT and higher expenditure in the year after diagnosis among women treated with IMRT (vs. cRT) with early-stage breast cancer and Medicare insurance. Our findings suggest a considerable opportunity to reduce treatment variation and cost of care while improving alignment between practice and clinical guidelines.

Association between socioeconomic factors and outcomes in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Persistent socioeconomic disparities are evident in the delivery of health care. Despite previous research into health disparities, the extent of the effect of economic inequalities in the management of breast cancer is not well understood. The purpose of our study is to perform a national assessment of the impact of economic factors on key aspects of breast cancer management. METHODS: This is a retrospective study using data from the National Cancer Database. The population consisted of female patients with primary breast cancer diagnosed between 2011 and 2015. Patients were categorized based on household income and insurance status. Outcomes investigated were stage at diagnosis, rate of breast conservation therapy, use of immediate reconstruction following mastectomy, and administration of systemic therapy for stage 3 and 4 disease. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine significant associations between economic factors and clinical outcomes. Survival analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of income and insurance on survival. RESULTS: In total, 666 487 women were evaluated. Multivariable regression analyses revealed that patients with lower income (OR, 1.23) and no insurance (OR, 1.64) were more often diagnosed with later stage disease. Patients with lower income (OR, 1.08) and no insurance (OR, 1.05) had a higher likelihood of undergoing mastectomy instead of breast conserving therapy. Patients with lower income (OR, 0.51) and no insurance (OR, 0.27) were less likely to receive immediate breast reconstruction. Administration of systemic therapy was less frequent in patients with lower income (OR, 0.90) and no insurance (OR, 0.52). A survival benefit was demonstrated in patients with high income and insurance. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate prevailing disparities in the delivery of care among patients with limited economic resources, which pertains to some of the most important aspects of breast cancer care. The full etiology of the observed disparities is complex and multifactorial, and a better understanding of these issues offers the potential to close the existing gap in quality of care.

Learning curves in intraoperative ultrasound guided surgery in breast cancer based on complete breast cancer excision and no need for second surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative ultrasound guided surgery (IOUS) is an effective surgical technique for breast cancer with advantages over wire localization guided surgery (WL), enabling smaller lumpectomies without compromising margins. Nevertheless, it has had a slow implementation, maybe due to lacking a learning curve. Also differences in costs are not clearly reported. The aim of the study is to assess differences in volume of healthy breast tissue excised, to establish a learning curve and to prove it is cost saving. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From February 2009 to April 2013, women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer eligible for IOUS or WL breast conserving surgery were recorded into a prospectively maintained database. Both groups were compared for differences in margin status, second surgeries and excess of healthy tissue resected, defined by the calculated resection ratio (CRR). A raw cost study was assessed. IOUS learning curve was analyzed using Cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM). RESULTS: The study included 214 patients, 148 (69.16%) in the IOUS group and 66 (30.84%) in the WL group. IOUS showed significantly smaller surgical volumes (p = 0.02), smaller CRR (p = 0.006), higher rate of negative margins (p = 0.017) and less surgical time (p = 0.006) than WL. Learning curves based on complete tumor excision and no need for second surgeries showed that 11 cases were enough to master the technique. Around 900€ per surgery was saved using IOUS vs. WL. CONCLUSION: IOUS decreases excision of healthy breast tissue while increasing negative margin rates compared to WL. IOUS can be easily implemented; 11 cases are enough to acquire skills for performing the technique. Savings can be up to 900€ per surgery.

Comparison of the value of superficial mark guided localization and hook-wire guided localization techniques for non-palpable breast microcalcifications: A retrospective clinical research.

AIM: The present study compares the effect and accuracy of the superficial mark guided localization (SGL) and hook-wire guided localization (WGL) techniques for non-palpable breast microcalcifications. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted to compare SGL and WGL techniques. These techniques were performed on 51 patients with non-palpable breast microcalcifications from January 2015 to May 2016. RESULTS: Among these 51 patients, 25 (49.01%) patients were subjected to WGL and 26 patients (50.99%) were subjected to SGL. The SGL technique had a higher rate of malignant cancer detection (WGL = 12.0% and SGL = 23.0%). Furthermore, no significant differences were found with regard to average age, the rate of a second excision and the diameter of the excised tissue. Moreover, no complications were observed in the SGL group, while four (16.0%) patients in the WGL group experienced problems. CONCLUSION: The SGL technique is as accurate as the WGL technique. Furthermore, the procedure has advantages of being less expensive and causing less complications.

The Impact of Breast Lumpectomy Tray Utilization on Cost Savings.

BACKGROUND: Right-sizing instrument trays reduce processing and replacement costs, physical strain, and turnover times. Historically, a 98-instrument head and neck tray has been used for breast lumpectomy cases at our institution. Observations revealed that many instruments on the tray were not used during the breast cases. With the significant number of surgical breast lumpectomies performed annually, tray downsizing could significantly reduce costs and physical strain. METHODS: Surgical technicians identified instruments needed for a standard breast lumpectomy. Breast surgeons reviewed the list and made final recommendations. Three of 13 existing head and neck trays were converted to breast lumpectomy trays. The number of breast lumpectomies in 2017 was pulled from the institution's health information system. Instrument quantities were verified using instrument management software. Weights were taken on a digital scale, and processing cost was estimated by a consultant. RESULTS: The new breast trays included 51 instruments rather than the standard 98-instrument trays. Reprocessing cost decreased from $49.98 to $26.01. With 449 breast lumpectomies performed at the institution in 2017, the annual reprocessing savings totaled $10,763. The tray weight was reduced from 27 to 16 pounds. Setup time decreased from 7 to 4 min per use (22.5 h saved annually). CONCLUSIONS: Downsizing from a head and neck tray to a specific breast lumpectomy tray demonstrated a reduction in reprocessing cost, tray weight, and setup time. Lighter trays allow for safer handling and transport by surgical personnel. In the current health-care environment, it is important to maximize operating room efficiency and minimize cost.

Cost-effectiveness of surgeon performed intraoperative specimen ink in breast conservation surgery.

BACKGROUND: Re-excision rates after breast conservation surgery are reported to be 20%-40%. Inaccuracies with specimen orientation may affect margin assessment. This study examined whether the addition of surgeon performed intraoperative inking of the lumpectomy specimen after adoption of margin guidelines would be cost-effective. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospective surgical database was performed from 2009 to 2017. Patients with initial lumpectomy and a preoperative diagnosis of invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were included. Re-excision rates and the surgical costs per 100 initial lumpectomies were compared across three periods: before margin guideline publication, after guideline adoption, and after the addition of intraoperative surgeon performed specimen inking. RESULTS: Four hundred initial lumpectomies were evaluated. Overall re-excision rate was 21% (n = 84). There was a nonsignificant reduction in re-excision rates after margin guidelines from 24% (n = 36) to 20% (n = 23) and to 19% (n = 25) after addition of intraoperative specimen ink. Re-excision rates were significantly lower for invasive cancer than for DCIS across three periods (20%, 15%, and 12% versus 37%, 33%, and 31%) (odds ratio 3.31, P = 0.007). The estimated cost of re-excision per 100 initial lumpectomies decreased after guidelines by 25% ($128,270) for invasive breast cancer and by 11% ($102,616) for DCIS. The addition of intraoperative specimen inking after margin guideline adoption resulted in further 17% cost savings ($66,692) for invasive breast cancer and 5% ($41,308) for DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon performed intraoperative inking of the lumpectomy specimen after adoption of margin guidelines is a cost-effective technique in breast conservation surgery.

Trends in Lumpectomy and Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery in the US, 2011-2016.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast surgery aims to optimize efficacy of surgical resection and cosmesis to maximize patient satisfaction; however, despite the benefits, oncoplastic techniques have not been widely adopted in the US. This study examined trends in the incidence of lumpectomy (partial mastectomy) with or without oncoplastic techniques from 2011 to 2016. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of claims from the Optum Clinformatics database (January 2010-March 2017). Female patients with no history of breast surgery in the prior year were categorized into three independent cohorts: isolated lumpectomy (Lx), lumpectomy with tissue transfer (LxTT), or lumpectomy with mammaplasty and/or mastopexy (LxMM). Oncoplastic techniques (in cohorts two and three) were performed at either time of the initial lumpectomy or during 90-day follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 19,253 patients met the inclusion criteria (91.1% Lx, 5.2% LxTT, and 3.7% LxMM). Significantly fewer patients with Lx had a family history of breast cancer compared with patients with oncoplastic techniques (26.4% vs. 33.7% and 37.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). The incidence of Lx declined significantly from 2011 (92.9%) to 2016 (88.1%), while LxTT and LxMM increased from 4.2 to 7.2% and 2.8 to 4.7%, respectively (both p < 0.001). The greatest utilization of oncoplastic techniques was observed in the Pacific census division (19.2%), while lowest utilization was in the East South Central division (3.2%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While increased adoption of oncoplastic techniques was observed, the compound annual growth rate remained below 10% and varied significantly by region. Further adoption of oncoplastic techniques is necessary to improve cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction following breast-conserving surgery.

Cutting Healthcare Costs with Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided Breast Lumpectomy.

BACKGROUND: Localization of nonpalpable breast lesions for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) remains highly variable and includes needle/wire localization (NL), radioactive seed localization, radar localization, and hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) lumpectomy. The superiority of HUG lumpectomy over NL has been demonstrated repeatedly in terms of safety, accuracy, low positive margin rates, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. In this study, we evaluate the cost effectiveness of HUG lumpectomy over NL for nonpalpable breast lesions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 569 patients who underwent lumpectomy at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences from May 2014 through December 2017. Lumpectomies were stratified by localization technique, i.e. NL versus HUG. A cost-savings estimate was determined for the HUG localization technique, and a total amount of dollars saved over the study period was calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 569 lumpectomies were performed: 501 (88.0%) via HUG and 68 (12.0%) via NL. Intraoperative ultrasound was used in 566 operations (99.5%). Of the lumpectomies performed by HUG, 190 lesions (33.4%) were visible only on mammogram or breast magnetic resonance imaging prior to diagnostic core needle biopsy (CNB). Cost estimates comparing HUG with NL demonstrated a cost savings of $497.00 per procedure, the cost of preoperative needle localization by a radiologist, and a total of $94,430.00 for the study period. CONCLUSION: In utilizing HUG lumpectomy, the initial CNB serves as the diagnostic and localization procedure, thus saving time and a painful second procedure on the day of operation. HUG lumpectomy is safe, accurate, reduces healthcare costs, and results in a better patient experience for the surgical removal of nonpalpable breast lesions.