Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cost-Effectiveness of Radar Localisation Versus Wire Localisation for Wide Local Excision of Non-palpable Breast Cancer.
Nguyen, Chu Luan; Cui, Rebecca; Zhou, Michael; Ali, Fatema; Easwaralingam, Neshanth; Chan, Belinda; Graham, Susannah; Azimi, Farhad; Mak, Cindy; Warrier, Sanjay.
Affiliation
  • Nguyen CL; Department of Breast Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. chuluannguyen@gmail.com.
  • Cui R; Department of Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. chuluannguyen@gmail.com.
  • Zhou M; Department of Surgery, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. chuluannguyen@gmail.com.
  • Ali F; Department of Breast Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
  • Easwaralingam N; Department of Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
  • Chan B; Department of Surgery, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
  • Graham S; Department of Surgery, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
  • Azimi F; Department of Breast Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
  • Mak C; Department of Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
  • Warrier S; Department of Surgery, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 31(6): 3916-3925, 2024 Jun.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38472677
ABSTRACT

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.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Breast Neoplasms / Cost-Benefit Analysis Limits: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Middle aged Country/Region as subject: Oceania Language: En Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Journal subject: NEOPLASIAS Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Breast Neoplasms / Cost-Benefit Analysis Limits: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Middle aged Country/Region as subject: Oceania Language: En Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Journal subject: NEOPLASIAS Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia