Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Treatment for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

PURPOSE: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for 20% of breast cancer cases in the United States and is potentially overtreated, leading to high expenditures and low-value care. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating all adjuvant treatment strategies for DCIS. METHODS: A Markov model was created with six competing treatment strategies: observation, tamoxifen (TAM) alone, aromatase inhibitor (AI) alone, radiation treatment (RT) alone, RT + TAM, and RT + AI. Baseline recurrence rates were modeled using the NSABP B17 and RTOG 9804 trials for standard-risk and good-risk DCIS, respectively. Relative risk reductions and adverse event rates for each treatment strategy were derived from meta-analyses of large randomized trials. We used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 in US dollars/quality-adjusted life-year and a lifetime horizon for two cohorts of women, age 40 and 60 years. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of base-case results. RESULTS: RT alone was cost-effective for patients with standard-risk DCIS, and observation was cost-effective for patients with good-risk DCIS, across both age groups. Strategies including TAM or AI resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years than observation, because of the prolonged decrement in quality of life outweighing the modest benefit in ipsilateral risk reduction. In sensitivity analysis, RT alone was cost-effective for age 40, good-risk patients when ipsilateral risk reduction matched that of the RTOG 9804 trial, there was minimal increased risk of contralateral breast secondary malignancy, or there was strong patient willingness to pursue RT. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that cost-effective and clinically optimal treatment strategies are RT alone for standard-risk DCIS and observation for good-risk DCIS, with personalization on the basis of patient age and preference for RT. Hormonal therapy is likely suboptimal for most patients with DCIS.

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.

Is Bigger Better?: The Effect of Hospital Consolidation on Index Hospitalization Costs and Outcomes Among Privately Insured Recipients of Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between hospital market competition and inpatient costs, procedural markup, inpatient complications, and length of stay among privately insured patients undergoing immediate reconstruction after mastectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of privately insured female patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction in the 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample was performed. The Herfindahl-Hirschman index was used to describe hospital market competition; associations with outcomes were explored via hierarchical models adjusting for patient, hospital, and market characteristics. RESULTS: A weighted total of 42,411 patients were identified; 5920 (14.0%) underwent free flap reconstruction. In uncompetitive markets, 6.8% (n=857) underwent free flap reconstruction, compared with 13.6% (n=2773) in highly competitive markets and 24.6% (n=2290) in moderately competitive markets. For every 5 additional hospitals in a market, adjusted costs were 6.6% higher (95% CI: 2.8%-10.5%), for free flap reconstruction, and 5.1% higher (95% CI: 2.0%-8.4%) for nonfree flap reconstruction. Similarly, higher procedural markup was associated with increased hospital market competition both for nonfree flap reconstruction (5.5% increase, 95% CI: 1.1%-10.1%) and for free flap reconstruction (8.2% increase, 95% CI: 1.8%-15.0%). Notably, there was no association between incidence of inpatient complications or extended length of stay and hospital market competition among either free flap or nonfree flap reconstruction patients. CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing market competition was associated with lower inpatient costs and equivocal clinical outcomes. This suggests that some of the economies of scale, access to capital and care delivery efficiencies gained from increased market power following hospital mergers are passed onto payers and consumers as lower costs.

Is risk-stratified breast cancer screening economically efficient in Germany?

OBJECTIVES: Risk stratification has so far been evaluated under the assumption that women fully adhere to screening recommendations. However, the participation in German cancer screening programs remains low at 54%. The question arises whether risk-stratified screening is economically efficient under the assumption that adherence is not perfect. METHOD: We have adapted a micro-simulation Markov model to the German context. Annual, biennial, and triennial routine screening are compared with five risk-adapted strategies using thresholds of relative risk to stratify screening frequencies. We used three outcome variables (mortality reduction, quality-adjusted life years, and false-positive results) under the assumption of full adherence vs. an adherence rate of 54%. Strategies are evaluated using efficiency frontiers and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: The reduced adherence rate affects both performance and cost; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remain constant. The results of PSA show that risk-stratified screening strategies are more efficient than biennial routine screening under certain conditions. At any willingness-to-pay (WTP), there is a risk-stratified alternative with a higher likelihood of being the best choice. However, without explicit decision criteria and WTP, risk-stratified screening is not more efficient than biennial routine screening. Potential improvements in the adherence rates have significant health gains and budgetary implications. CONCLUSION: If the participation rate for mammographic screening is as low as in Germany, stratified screening is not clearly more efficient than routine screening but dependent on the WTP. A more promising design for future stratified strategies is the combination of risk stratification mechanisms with interventions to improve the low adherence in selected high-risk groups.

Regional Market Competition and the Use of Immediate Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Prior work has shown that the competitiveness of the market in which hospitals operate is associated with use of surgical procedures. This study examined the association between regional market competition and use of breast reconstruction for women with breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing mastectomy. METHODS: Women who underwent mastectomy from 2010 to 2011 recorded in the National Inpatient Sample were selected. The competitive market environment for each hospital in which patients were treated was estimated using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Multivariable models were developed to examine the association between regional market competition and breast reconstruction, with adjustment for other clinical, demographic, and structural variables. RESULTS: Immediate breast reconstruction was performed for 9902 (45%) of 22,011 women. The rate of immediate breast reconstruction was 34.5% at hospitals in non-competitive markets, 49% at hospitals in moderately competitive markets, and 56.4% at hospitals in highly competitive markets (P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, women in moderately competitive markets were 24% (risk ratio [RR] 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.41) more likely to undergo immediate breast reconstruction than women in noncompetitive markets, whereas those in competitive markets were 25% (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.11-1.41) more likely to have reconstruction. Later year of treatment, higher census tract income level, and residence in an urban area were associated with an increased likelihood of reconstruction (P < 0.05 for all). In contrast, older age, non-white race, and non-commercial insurance were associated with a lower likelihood of reconstruction (P < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo mastectomy at hospitals in competitive markets are more likely to undergo immediate breast reconstruction.

The impact of state parity laws on copayments for and adherence to oral endocrine therapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to endocrine therapy for breast cancer is often inadequate, in part because of out-of-pocket costs for medication. Numerous states have enacted parity laws to limit patient cost-sharing for oral anticancer drugs. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of these laws on patient copayments for and adherence to oral endocrine therapy for breast cancer. METHODS: Administrative health insurance claims data from 2007 to 2014 derived from a US health care database were used to identify female patients aged 18 to 64 years with invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast who initiated endocrine therapy and were enrolled in fully insured health plans in states that either enacted parity legislation between 2008 and 2013 or had not yet enacted such legislation by 2015. Differences-in-differences analysis was used to compare copayments for and adherence to endocrine therapy during the 1-year period before and after each year of legislation enactment. RESULTS: In total, 6900 individuals who received 7778 unique drug therapy courses were identified. Parity legislation was associated with significant decreases in the 25th percentile of copayments for anastrozole of $4.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$4.52 to -$4.26; P < .001) and for exemestane of $3.08 (95% CI, -$4.80 to -$1.35; P < .001). The median copayment for exemestane decreased by $10.25 (95% CI, -$12.61 to -$7.89; P < .001). A higher median monthly copayment was significantly associated with a greater risk of medication nonadherence (adjusted risk ratio, 1.006 per dollar increase; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Parity laws had a modest effect on lowering the cost of anastrozole and exemestane, but more focused efforts to limit out-of-pocket costs for endocrine therapy may have a greater impact on medication adherence.

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.

Burden of early, advanced and metastatic breast cancer in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the total economic and health related burden of breast cancer in the Netherlands. METHODS: Data on incidence, prevalence, mortality and survival were extracted from the Dutch National Cancer Registry and were used to calculate the economic and health related burden of breast cancer for overall, DCIS (stage 0), early- (stage I), locally advanced- (stage II-III) and metastatic- (stage IV) breast cancer by age groups and by year (if applicable). RESULTS: The overall incidence of breast cancer increased from 103.4 up to 153.2 per 100,000 women between 1990 and 2014. The increase was driven by DCIS and early breast cancer as the incidence of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer remained stable. Between 1990 and 2014, ten-year overall survival rates increased from 87% to 93% for early breast cancer, 41% to 62% for locally advanced- and from 6% to 9% for metastatic disease. Annually, breast cancer in the Netherlands is responsible for approximately 3100 deaths, 26,000 life years lost, 65,000 Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and an economic burden of €1.27 billion. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive assessment of the burden of breast cancer and subsequent trends over time in the Netherlands.

Evaluating the Effect of Margin Consensus Guideline Publication on Operative Patterns and Financial Impact of Breast Cancer Operation.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate re-excision rates, patient satisfaction with their breasts, and healthcare costs before and after publication of 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society of Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast conserving operation with whole-breast irradiation for stage I and II breast cancer at an academic institution. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with stage I and II invasive carcinomas who underwent partial mastectomy were divided into 2 groups based on whether they were treated before (PRE) or after (POST) guideline publication in March 2014. Groups were compared with respect to re-excision rates, conversion to mastectomy, specimen volumes, mean cost per patient of surgical care, and prospectively collected patient post-procedure quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients who underwent partial mastectomy were examined (n = 126 in the PRE group and n = 111 in the POST group). Patients in the POST group were less likely to require re-excision (9% POST vs 37% PRE; p < 0.001) and were less likely to undergo conversion to mastectomy (5% POST vs 14% PRE; p = 0.02). After consensus guideline publication, mean operative cost per patient decreased ($4,874 POST vs $5,772 PRE; p < 0.001), and patients had improved breast quality of life scores (77 out of 100 POST vs 61 out of 100 PRE; p = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, publication of the consensus statement was an independent predictor of decreased re-excision rates (odds ratio 0.17; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and operative cost per patient (odds ratio 0.14; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.30; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Widespread implementation of the consensus guideline on margins for breast conserving operation will likely lead to the intended improvements in operative and financial outcomes, as well as patient satisfaction with breast conserving operation.

The Association Between Out-of-Pocket Costs and Adherence to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Among Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how out-of-pocket costs for adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) medication affects adherence among newly diagnosed breast cancer survivors with private health insurance who initiate therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined medical and pharmacy claims for the 1-year period after initiating AET using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database. Adherence was defined as ≥80% proportion of days covered. Mean out-of-pocket costs for AET fill were measured as the sum of copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles and adjusted to 30-day amounts. Using a multivariable logistic regression model we calculated adjusted risk ratios controlling for age, comorbidities, type of surgery, use of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, average out-of-pocket costs for other services, and pharmacy use characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 6863 women 64 years and younger who were diagnosed with breast cancer and initiated AET, 73.9% were adherent (proportion of days covered≥80%). A total of 19% of patients had <$5 monthly out-of-pocket costs for AET, 30% had $5 to $9.99, 17% had $10 to $14.99, 10% had $15 to $19.99, and 25% had $20 or greater. Patients with out-of-pocket costs for AET between $10 and $14.99, $15 and $19.99, and >$20 were 6% to 8% less likely to be adherent compared with patients paying <$5.00, after controlling for covariates (P<0.05). Out-of-pocket costs for inpatient, outpatient, and other pharmacy services were not associated with adherence. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of privately insured patients are nonadherent to AET and out-of-pocket costs for AET medication are significantly associated with a greater likelihood of nonadherence.

Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening.

PURPOSE: Due to limitations in the ability to identify non-progressive disease, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is usually managed similarly to localized invasive breast cancer. We used simulation modeling to evaluate the potential impact of a hypothetical test that identifies non-progressive DCIS. METHODS: A discrete-event model simulated a cohort of U.S. women undergoing digital screening mammography. All women diagnosed with DCIS underwent the hypothetical DCIS prognostic test. Women with test results indicating progressive DCIS received standard breast cancer treatment and a decrement to quality of life corresponding to the treatment. If the DCIS test indicated non-progressive DCIS, no treatment was received and women continued routine annual surveillance mammography. A range of test performance characteristics and prevalence of non-progressive disease were simulated. Analysis compared discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for test scenarios to base-case scenarios without the test. RESULTS: Compared to the base case, a perfect prognostic test resulted in a 40% decrease in treatment costs, from $13,321 to $8005 USD per DCIS case. A perfect test produced 0.04 additional QALYs (16 days) for women diagnosed with DCIS, added to the base case of 5.88 QALYs per DCIS case. The results were sensitive to the performance characteristics of the prognostic test, the proportion of DCIS cases that were non-progressive in the model, and the frequency of mammography screening in the population. CONCLUSION: A prognostic test that identifies non-progressive DCIS would substantially reduce treatment costs but result in only modest improvements in quality of life when averaged over all DCIS cases.

Value of a short-term imaging follow-up after a benign result in a one-stop breast unit: Is it still useful?

INTRODUCTION: A short-term radiologic follow-up after a benign breast biopsy or fine needle aspiration (FNA) is recommended in many guidelines. However, the current trend is to reduce imaging investigations, radiation dose and costs. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the cancer detection rate at short-term follow-up and to estimate its cost. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed all consecutive patients referred to our 'one-stop' breast unit between 2004 and 2012, with a benign histological or cytological result and at least one short-term follow-up within 3-12 months after the initial diagnosis. We evaluated the number of cancers detected, as well as the mean cost to detect each cancer and per patient. RESULTS: About 1366 patients were eligible for this study. Ten patients were diagnosed with cancers (0.73%) at short-term follow-up; six of 10 were low-grade tumours or ductal carcinoma in situ. The cost for detecting one cancer was 19,043€, with mean cost per patient of 139€. CONCLUSION: The cancer detection rate at short-term follow-up after benign biopsy or FNA was low and was similar to that of most national screening programs. The cost of cancer detection appeared high, considering that most cancers were indolent. This suggests that radiologic follow-up could reasonably be carried out at a later point in time.

Radioactive Seed Localization Versus Wire-Guided Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Cancer: A Cost and Operating Room Efficiency Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the cost and resource use between our first-year experience using breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radioactive seed localization (RSL) and the previous-year standard practice of BCS with wire-guided localization (WGL) for patients with nonpalpable breast cancer at a large Canadian tertiary center. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, data for BCS cases with RSL was collected from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and for BCS cases with WGL from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. RESULTS: The study compared 153 WGL patients with 194 RSL patients. The two groups had no significant demographic differences. The average cost per patient for RSL, including opportunity costs, was $250.90 versus $1130.41 for WGL. Dedicated allocated radiology appointments to RSL increased (9 per day), and fewer radiologists were required for these procedures per day. Patients were transported to the operating room more quickly for RSL procedures (120 vs. 254 min; p < 0.001). Fewer vasovagal reactions occurred after insertion of RSL versus WGL (p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed in terms of surgical time, specimen volume, positive margins, or margin reexcision rates. No significant differences in postoperative complication rates were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, RSL had lower costs than WGL, allowed for more efficient use of radiology scheduling and resources, and had shorter wait times for patients on their day of surgery. In addition, RSL led to fewer vasovagal reactions at insertion. Therefore, RSL should be used instead of WGL given the reduced cost, decreased need of human resources, improved efficiency, and potential benefits to the patient experience.

Economic Impact of Routine Cavity Margins Versus Standard Partial Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare costs associated with excision of routine cavity shave margins (CSM) versus standard partial mastectomy (PM) in patients with breast cancer. BACKGROUND: Excision of CSM reduces re-excision rates by more than 50%. The economic implications of this is, however, unclear. METHODS: Between October 21, 2011 and November 25, 2013, 235 women undergoing PM for Stage 0-III breast cancer were randomized to undergo either standard PM ("no shave", n = 116) or have additional CSM taken ("shave", n = 119). Costs from both a payer and a hospital perspective were measured for index surgery and breast cancer surgery-related care through subsequent 90 days. RESULTS: The 2 groups were well-matched in terms of baseline characteristics. Those in the "shave" group had a longer operative time at the initial surgery (median 76 vs 66 min, P < 0.01), but a lower re-excision rate for positive margins (13/119 = 10.9% vs 32/116 = 27.6%, P < 0.01). Actual direct hospital costs associated with operating room time ($1315 vs. $1137, P = 0.03) and pathology costs ($1195 vs $795, P < 0.01) were greater for the initial surgery in patients in the "shave" group. Taking into account the index surgery and the subsequent 90 days, there was no significant difference in cost from either the payer ($10,476 vs $11,219, P = 0.40) or hospital perspective ($5090 vs $5116, P = 0.37) between the "shave" and "no shave" groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall costs were not significantly different between the "shave" and "no shave" groups due to significantly fewer reoperative surgeries in the former.

A cost-effective handheld breast scanner for use in low-resource environments: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: With the incidence of breast cancer rising worldwide, we are evaluating the iBreastExam (iBE) (UE LifeSciences Inc.), a handheld breast scanning device that can be utilized by community health workers to screen for breast abnormalities. The purpose of this study is to determine the sensitivity of the iBE in a population undergoing diagnostic breast imaging. METHODS: Adult patients presenting to a breast imaging center for a diagnostic workup were eligible. Patients underwent an iBE exam performed by a trained ultrasound technician followed by their indicated imaging. Demographic, imaging, and biopsy data were recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-eight iBE exams were completed, 77 females and one male with a mean age of 42 (21-79). All patients were evaluated by ultrasound, 52 had diagnostic mammography and 39 had biopsies. Imaging and/or biopsy confirmed a mass (fibroadenoma, cyst, papilloma, myofibroblastoma, fat necrosis, DCIS, or cancer) in 60 patients. Twelve patients had a cancer diagnosed. In total, 342 quadrants were scanned, 77 quadrants had lesions confirmed on imaging, and iBE correctly identified 66 lesions for a sensitivity of 86 % and specificity of 89 %. CONCLUSIONS: This validation study demonstrated excellent sensitivity of iBE for the identification of clinically significant lesions in patients presenting for diagnostic imaging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A Cost-Effective Handheld Breast Scanner for Use in Low Resource Environments: A Validation Study: NCT02814292 .

Reflex Estrogen Receptor (ER) and Progesterone Receptor (PR) Analysis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) in Breast Needle Core Biopsy Specimens: An Unnecessary Exercise That Costs the United States $35 Million/y.

Most institutions reflexively test all breast core needle biopsy specimens showing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR). However, 5 factors suggest that this reflex testing unnecessarily increases costs. First, ER/PR results do not currently impact the next step in standard therapy; namely, surgical excision. Second, a subset of surgical excisions performed for DCIS diagnosed on core needle biopsy will harbor infiltrating mammary carcinoma, which will then need to be retested for ER/PR. Third, because ER and PR labeling is often heterogeneous in DCIS, negative results for ER/PR on small core needle biopsy specimens should logically be repeated on surgical excision specimens with larger amounts of DCIS to be sure that the result is truly negative. Fourth, many patients with pure ER/PR-positive DCIS after surgical excision will decline hormone therapy, so any ER/PR testing of their DCIS is unnecessary. Fifth, PR status in DCIS has no proven independent value. We now examine the unnecessary added costs associated with reflex ER/PR testing of DCIS on core needle biopsy specimens due to these factors. We reviewed 58 core needle biopsies showing pure DCIS that also had a resulting surgical excision specimen at our institution over a period of 2 years. No patient received neoadjuvant hormone therapy. On surgical excision, 5 (8.6%) had only benign findings, 44 (75.9%) had pure DCIS, and 9 (15.5%) had DCIS with invasive mammary carcinoma. The 9 cases with invasive mammary carcinoma in the surgical excision specimen (16%) and the 4 pure DCIS in surgical excision specimens that were ER/PR negative on core needle biopsy would need repeat ER/PR testing. The total unnecessary increased cost of core needle biopsy specimen testing of these 13 cases was $8148.92 ($140/patient for the 58 patients in the study). We found that ER/PR testing results impacted patient management in only 16/49 pure DCIS cases after surgical excision (33%), indicating that ER/PR testing costing $20,685.72 ($357/patient in the study) had been performed unnecessarily. PR testing could have been omitted in the 16 cases in which ER/PR results were used, which would have saved $5014.72, or $86.46 per patient. Extrapolating the increased cost of $583 per DCIS diagnosis on core needle biopsy to 60,000 new cases of DCIS in the United States each year, reflex core needle biopsy ER/PR testing unnecessarily increases costs by approximately $35 million. We recommend that ER/PR not be reflexively ordered on core needle biopsy specimens or surgical excision specimens containing DCIS, but instead that ER alone be performed on surgical excision specimens only when hormone therapy is a serious consideration after medical oncology consultation.

Examining Determinants of Radiotherapy Access: Do Cost and Radiotherapy Inconvenience Affect Uptake of Breast-conserving Treatment for Early Breast Cancer?

AIMS: Radiotherapy utilisation is likely affected by multiple factors pertaining to radiotherapy access. Radiotherapy is an integral component of breast-conserving treatment (BCT) for early breast cancer. We aimed to determine if stepwise improvements in radiotherapy access in regional Australia affected the uptake of BCT and thus radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast cancer operations in the Central Coast of New South Wales between January 2010 and March 2014 for T1-2N0-1M0 invasive or in situ (≤5 cm) disease in female patients eligible for BCT were examined. BCT uptake was calculated for three 1 year periods: period 1 (local radiotherapy available at cost to user or out of area radiotherapy with travel cost and inconvenience); period 2 (as per period 1 + publicly funded transport and radiotherapy at out of area facilities at no cost to user); period 3 (as per period 1 + publicly funded local radiotherapy at no cost to user). RESULTS: In total, 574 cases met eligibility criteria. BCT declined with increasing distance to publicly funded radiotherapy (P = 0.035). BCT rates for periods 1, 2 and 3 were 63% (113/180), 61% (105/173) and 71% (156/221). There were no statistically significant differences in BCT between periods 1 and 2 in the whole cohort or within age, histology or tumour size subgroups. Overall, there was a 9% increase in BCT in the whole cohort in period 3 compared with periods 1 and 2 (P = 0.031). This increase was statistically significant for women over 70 years (19% increase, P = 0.034), for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (25% increase, P = 0.013) and for women with primary tumours that were ≤10 mm (21% increase, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Improving the affordability of radiotherapy through publicly funded transport and radiotherapy at out of area facilities did not improve BCT uptake in a region where radiotherapy was locally available, albeit at cost to the user. Improving both affordability and convenience through the provision of local publicly funded radiotherapy increased BCT uptake. Service availability and affordability have long been recognised as important determinants of radiotherapy access. Our findings suggest that inconvenience may also influence radiotherapy utilisation.

Ductal carcinoma in situ: a brief review of treatment variation and impacts on patients and society.

Nearly 20% of all breast cancer cases are ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), with over 60,000 cases diagnosed each year. Many of these cases would never cause clinical symptoms or threaten the life of the woman; however, it is currently impossible to distinguish which lesions will progress to invasive disease from those that will not. DCIS is generally associated with an excellent prognosis regardless of the treatment pathway, but there is variation in treatment aggressiveness that seems to exceed the medical uncertainty associated with DCIS management. Therefore, it would seem that a significant proportion of women with DCIS receive more extensive treatment than is needed. This overtreatment of DCIS is a growing concern among the breast cancer community and has implications for both the patient (via adverse treatment-related effects, as well as out-of-pocket costs) and society (via economic costs and the public health and environmental harm resulting from health care delivery). This article discusses DCIS treatment pathways and their implications for patients and society and calls for further research to examine the factors that are leading to such wide variation in treatment decisions.