Variable Accessibility to Consumer Pricing Among Breast Cancer Operations.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate that every US hospital provide public online pricing information for services rendered. This allows patients to compare prices across hospital systems before establishing care. The goal of this project was to evaluate hospital compliance and patient-level accessibility to price transparency for common breast cancer surgical procedures. METHODS: A sample case of a 62-year-old female with a T2N0 breast cancer was chosen. The patient would have the option of undergoing a partial mastectomy or mastectomy, both with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Eight Massachusetts academic medical centers were evaluated. Searches were performed by authors for each hospital system and procedure using the sample case. RESULTS: Every hospital had a cost calculator on its website. The average success rate of establishing a cost for partial mastectomy, mastectomy, and SLNB was 58, 35, and 25%, respectively. The median time to reach the cost calculator tool was 32 s (range 25-37 s). In successful attempts, the median pre-insurance estimated cost of a partial mastectomy was $16,509 (range $11,776-22,169), compared with $24,541 (range $16,921-25,543) for mastectomy and $12,342 (range $4034-20,644) for SLNB. SLNB costs varied significantly across hospitals (p = 0.025), but no statistically significant difference was observed for partial mastectomy or mastectomy. CONCLUSION: Despite new regulatory requirements by CMS for increased price transparency for surgical procedures, our results demonstrate poor success rates in obtaining cost estimates and significant variability of reported hospital charges. Further efforts to improve the quality of hospital cost estimate calculators are necessary for informed decision-making for patients with breast cancer.

Single Versus Dual Surgeon Approaches to Oncoplastic Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is traditionally performed using a dual surgeon (DS) approach that involves both a breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon. It is also performed using a single surgeon (SS) approach with a surgeon trained in both breast surgical oncology and plastic surgery. We sought to determine if outcomes differed between SS versus DS OPS approaches. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all OPS performed in a single health system over a 6-y period by either an SS or a DS approach. Primary outcomes were rates of positive margins and the overall complication rate; secondary outcomes were loco-regional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were identified; 117 were SS cases and 100 were DS cases. Baseline preoperative patient characteristics were similar between the two groups as there was no difference in mean Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (P = 0.07). There was no difference in tumor stage (P = 0.09) or nodal status (P = 0.31). Rates of positive margins were not significantly different (10.9% (SS) versus 9% (DS); P = 0.81), nor were rates of complications (11.1% (SS) versus 15% (DS); P = 0.42). Rates of locoregional recurrence were also not significantly different (1.7% (SS) versus 0% (DS); P = 0.5). Disease-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different at 1-y, 3-y, and 5-y time points (P = 0.20 and P = 0.23, respectively) although follow-up time was not sufficient for definitive analysis regarding survival. CONCLUSIONS: Both SS and DS approaches to OPS have similar outcomes with regards to positive margin rates and surgical complication rates and are comparably safe.

The adoption of oncoplastic surgery: Is there a learning curve?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy followed by volume displacement or replacement surgery. As the field of OPS is growing, we sought to determine if there was a learning curve to this surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent OPS over a 6-year period with a single surgeon formally trained in both Plastic Surgery and Breast Oncology. Cumulative summation analysis (CUSUM) was performed on mean operative time to generate the learning curve and learning curve phases. Outcomes were compared between phases to determine significance. RESULTS: Mean operative time decreased significantly across the 6-year period, generating three distinct learning curve phases: Learner phase (cases 1-23), Competence phase (24-73), and Mastery phase (74 and greater). The overall positive margin rate was 10.9% and there was no significant difference in rates between phases (p = 0.49). Overall complication rates, reoperation rates, and locoregional recurrence remained the same across all phases (p = 0.16; p = 0.65; p = 0.41). The rate of partial nipple loss decreased between phases (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: As with many complex operations, there does appear to be a learning curve with OPS, as the operative time and the rates of partial nipple loss decreased over time.

Comparing oncoplastic breast reduction with immediate symmetry surgery to standard breast reduction surgery: Are postoperative complications worse?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic breast reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is an excellent treatment option for women with breast cancer and macromastia undergoing breast conservation therapy. Here, we aim to better understand the risks associated with ORM compared to standard reduction mammoplasty (SRM). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing ORM or SRM from 2015 to 2021. Primary outcomes included the occurrence of major or minor postoperative complications in the two groups and delays to adjuvant therapy (>90 days) among the women undergoing ORM. RESULTS: Women in the ORM group (n = 198) were significantly older (p < 0.001) with a higher prevalence of smoking (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.01), and a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3 (p < 0.001) compared to women undergoing SRM (n = 177). After controlling for potential confounders, there were no significant between-group differences in the odds of developing postoperative complications (odds ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-1.69). Only 3% (n = 4) of the 150 women undergoing adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy experienced delays related to postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: ORM has a similar safety profile as SRM, despite the older age and higher number of comorbidities often seen in patients undergoing ORM, and is a safe option for achieving contralateral symmetry at the time of partial mastectomy without delays to adjuvant therapy.

Poor accessibility to consumer pricing exists for elective hernia repair surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hospital price transparency is federally mandated to improve consumer accessibility. We aimed to evaluate how hospitals were complying with these regulations for elective hernia repairs. METHODS: Searches were performed for different hospital systems in attempt to find a price for the procedure using author's own health insurance. Data collected included time to reach the cost estimate tool, time to obtain price estimates, and price ranges. With prices for inguinal and ventral hernia repairs varying across the state's medical centers. RESULTS: Fourteen medical centers across the country were included, all had a cost estimate calculator. The average success rate of obtaining a cost for inguinal hernia was 48%. Comparatively, the average success rate of obtaining a cost for ventral hernia was 12%. Of the successful searches for price, significant variation exists amongst the accessed hernia procedure cost. CONCLUSION: Despite federal mandates for hospital price transparency, online cost-estimate calculators are underperforming, thus exposing a need for more accessible cost-estimates for patients undergoing elective hernia repair.

Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.

We aim to discern the impact of closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) on wound healing in the oncoplastic breast surgery population. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent oncoplastic breast surgery with and without ciNPT in a single health system over 6 years. Oncoplastic breast surgery was defined as breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy with immediate volume displacement or replacement techniques. Primary outcomes were rates of clinically significant complications requiring either medical or operative intervention, including seroma, hematoma, fat necrosis, wound dehiscence, and infection. Secondary outcomes were rates of minor complications. Results: ciNPT was used in 75 patients; standard postsurgical dressing was used in 142 patients. Mean age (P = 0.73) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 0.11) were similar between the groups. The ciNPT cohort had higher baseline BMIs (28.23 ± 4.94 versus 30.55 ± 6.53; P = 0.004), ASA levels (2.35 ± 0.59 versus 2.62 ± 0.52; P = 0.002), and preoperative macromastia symptoms (18.3% versus 45.9%; P ≤ 0.001). The ciNPT cohort had statistically significant lower rates of clinically relevant complications (16.9% versus 5.3%; P = 0.016), the number of complications (14.1% versus 5.3% with one complication, 2.8% versus 0% with >2; P = 0.044), and wound dehiscence (5.6% versus 0%; P = 0.036). Conclusions: The use of ciNPT reduces the overall rate of clinically relevant postoperative complications, including wound dehiscence. The ciNPT cohort had higher rates of macromastia symptoms, BMI, and ASA, all of which put them at increased risk for complications. Therefore, ciNPT should be considered in the oncoplastic population, especially in those patients with increased risk for postoperative complications.