Impact of SSO-ASTRO "No Ink on Tumor" Guidelines on Reexcision Rates among Older Breast Cancer Patients

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.

Economic Impact of Reducing Reexcision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health System

BACKGROUND

Reexcision after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is costly for patients, but few studies have captured the economic burden to a healthcare system. We quantified operating room (OR) charges as well as OR time and then modeled expected savings of a reexcision reduction initiative.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort review of all breast cancer patients with BCS between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Operating room charges of disposable supplies and implants as well as operative time were calculated.

RESULTS

During the 5-year period, the 8804 patients who underwent BCS, 1628 (18.5%) required reexcision. The reexcision cohort was younger (61 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (23.7% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), and had larger tumors (T1+T2 73.2% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.001). Reexcision costs represented 39% of total costs, the cost per patient for surgery was fourfold higher for reexcision patients. Reexcision operations comprised 14% of total operating room (OR) time (1848 of 13,030 hours). The reexcision rate for 54 surgeons varied from 7.2-39.0% with 46% (n = 25) having a reexcision rate >20%. A model simulating reducing reexcision rates to 20% or below for all surgeons reduced the reexcision rate to 16.2% overall. Using per procedure data, the model predicted a decrease in reexcision operations by 18% (327 operations), OR costs by 14% ($287,534), and OR time by 11% (204 hours).

CONCLUSIONS

Reexcision after BCS represents 39% of direct OR costs and 14% of OR time in our healthcare system. Modest improvements in surgeon reexcision rates may lead to significant economic and OR time savings.

Supraclavicular and Contralateral Axillary Lymph Node Involvement in Breast Cancer Patients

Ipsilateral supraclavicular disease was reclassified from Stage IV, distant metastatic disease, to Stage IIIC, locally advanced breast cancer 20 years ago. Treatment with curative intent with multimodality therapy has led to improved outcomes over time. In contrast, metastatic disease to contralateral axillary lymph nodes remains as Stage IV distant disease. Despite this, in the absence of other distant metastases, many patients with contralateral axillary disease are treated more aggressively than other Stage IV patients. Outcomes of patients with contralateral axillary disease treated with curative intent are more like patients with ipsilateral supraclavicular disease and other locally advanced breast cancers than patients with de novo distant metastases elsewhere. Therefore, some favor reclassification of contralateral axillary metastases without distant metastasis from Stage IV to Stage III breast cancer similar to ipsilateral supraclavicular metastases.