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.

[Reconstructive breast surgery using implant and mesh]

The demand for reconstructive surgery after therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomy is increasing. The hammock technique for breast reconstruction was introduced in 2001 and provides support for the implant using either biologically derived or synthetic mesh. The material is formed as a hammock in the lower pole of the reconstructed breast, and due to its supportive capabilities it has been found to shorten the time needed for reconstruction, decrease the risk of capsular contracture and leave a superior aesthetic result. Correct patient selection seems crucial for optimizing the aesthetic outcome and minimizing complications.

A look inside the courtroom: an analysis of 292 cosmetic breast surgery medical malpractice cases

BACKGROUND

Malpractice claims affect the cost and quality of health care.

OBJECTIVE

The authors examine litigation in cosmetic breast surgery and identify factors influencing malpractice litigation outcomes.

METHODS

The Westlaw database was searched for jury verdict and settlement reports related to medical malpractice and cosmetic breast surgeries. Cases included for analysis were examined for year, geographic location, patient demographics, procedure performed, alleged injury, causes of action, verdict, and indemnity payments.

RESULTS

Of 292 cases, the most common injury sustained was disfigurement (53.1%). Negligent misrepresentation had a 98% greater chance of resolution in favor of the plaintiff (relative risk [RR], 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.79), and fraud had a 92% greater chance of disposition in favor of the plaintiff (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.32-2.80). The most common causes of action cited were negligence (88.7%) and lack of informed consent (43.8%). One hundred sixty-nine (58.3%) cases resulted in favor of the defendant and 121 (41.7%) cases were disposed in favor of the plaintiff; 97 (33.4%) cases resulted in damages awarded and 24 (8.3%) cases resulted in settlement. No significant difference was found between the medians of indemnity payments awarded to plaintiffs ($245 000) and settlements ($300 000).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study, negligent or intentional misrepresentation strongly favors plaintiffs in either awarded damages or settlements in cases of cosmetic breast surgery litigation. This study emphasizes that transparency and adequate communication are at the crux of the physician-patient relationship and are tools by which plastic surgeons may reduce the frequency of litigations, thereby containing health care costs at a minimum.

Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix

BACKGROUND

Use of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction has been widely adopted. Despite an increasing focus on health care costs, few reports have addressed the financial implications of ADM use. This study sought to examine the costs of the two-stage technique with and without ADM, concentrating on the direct variable costs of patient care during the expansion process.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted. Data were collected on 132 cases resulting in a second-stage exchange for a permanent implant. The findings showed that AlloDerm was used in 61 reconstructions and Strattice in 23 reconstructions. The primary outcome was the number of fills required to achieve the final expander fill volume. The cost of subsequent patient encounters for expansion was estimated using institutional cost data.

RESULTS

The number of fills required to achieve the final volume was higher in the non-ADM group (6.5 ± 1.7) than in the ADM group (3.6 ± 1.4) (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found in the small fill volumes (<350 ml; 5.3 vs. 3.7; p > 0.05). The difference was significant in the larger fill volumes (>500 ml; 8.3 vs. 3.7; p < 0.05). Relative to non-ADM reconstruction, with AlloDerm at current prices, the cost increase ranged from $2,727.75 for large reconstructions to $3,290.25 for small reconstructions ($2,167.75-$2,739.25 with Strattice).

CONCLUSION

The use of ADM in two-stage reconstruction reduces the number of visits required for reconstructions with 350 ml or more. However, at current pricings, the direct cost of ADM use does not offset the cost savings from the reduced number of visits.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Cost comparison of immediate one-stage and tissue-expander breast reconstructions after mastectomy in commercially insured patients

OBJECTIVE

Growing acceptance of nipple-sparing mastectomy and rising rates of prophylactic mastectomy due to genetic findings make immediate one-stage implant breast reconstruction an attractive option for many American women facing post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. We compared medical services utilization and cost of immediate one-stage reconstruction with that of the more common tissue-expander (TE) breast reconstruction.

DESIGN

Retrospective administrative claims database analysis.

METHODS

We obtained commercial insurance claims on patients in the U.S. who had undergone one-stage or TE post-mastectomy implant breast reconstructions in 2008, and we compared 18-month results in terms of the frequency and cost of return visits for additional procedures and/or for the treatment of complications. Return visits were categorized as planned, planned with revision, or unplanned.

RESULTS

Among 1,316 immediate implant breast reconstructions, 95 (7%) were one-stage procedures and 1,221 (93%) were TE reconstructions. The data showed a modest, nonsignificant trend toward fewer return visits after one-stage reconstruction versus TE reconstruction (191 vs. 242 visits per 100 patients, respectively; relative risk [RR]: 0.95). Patients with TE reconstructions returned more often for planned returns and planned returns with revisions. Patients with one-stage reconstructions returned more often for unplanned events. The total costs over 18 months were $34,839 and $39,062 for one-stage and TE reconstructions, respectively, for a difference of -$4,223 (P = 0.38). The initial reconstruction, including the mastectomy, accounted for 64% of the 18-month costs with one-stage reconstructions and for 54% of the 18-month costs for TE reconstructions.

CONCLUSION

Costs and utilization trended lower over 18 months for one-stage versus TE reconstructions following post-mastectomy breast reconstructions but did not achieve statistical significance.

The cost effectiveness of three different measures of breast volume

BACKGROUND

Several methods including water displacement, casting, the Grossman-Roudner measuring device, photographs, mammograms, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been proposed for the measurement of breast volume. The most cost-effective method has not been determined.

METHODS

This study compared breast volume measurements using the Grossman-Roudner measuring device (a piece of circular plastic with a cut along a radius line), plaster casting, and MRI. The Grossman-Roudner measuring device was formed into a cone around the breast, and the volume was read from a graduated scale on the overlapping edges. The volume of the cast was measured using a butter-sand mixture and water displacement. The volume from the MRI slices was calculated using the ANALYZE bioimaging software. For five women with breast sizes AA, A, B, C, and D, the three volume measures were repeated three times. For a single volume measurement, the cost of the time and materials was 1 US dollar for the Grossman-Roudner cone, 20 US dollars for the cast, and 1,400 US dollars for the MRI. Using the mean and standard deviations of the measurements, a power analysis determined the number of subjects needed to detect a 5% change in volume. The number of subjects was multiplied by the price per test to determine relative cost.

RESULTS

As compared with the cost for the Grossman-Roudner cone method, the cost for the volume measurements was 64 to 189 times more using the cast and 373 to 33,500 more using MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

The Grossman-Roudner cone was clearly the most cost-effective method for determining breast volume changes in studies testing topical therapies to alter breast size.

Resource cost comparison of implant-based breast reconstruction versus TRAM flap breast reconstruction

Relatively little has been published to date comparing the resource costs of transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap and prosthetic breast reconstruction. The data that have been published reflect the experience at just one medical center with a previously known clear preference for autologous breast reconstruction. The goal of this study was to compare the resource costs of TRAM flap and prosthetic reconstruction in an institution where both procedures continue to be performed using modern techniques and at a relatively equivalent frequency. All available medical records were reviewed for patients who had completed their breast reconstruction between 1987 and 1997. Records of patients who had undergone TRAM flap or prosthetic reconstruction were reviewed to compare resource costs, including hospital stay, operating room time, anesthesia time, prosthetic devices, and physician's fees. Of 835 patients reviewed who had completed breast reconstruction, a total of 140 suitable patients were identified who had all the necessary financial information available. The patient population comprised 64 patients who received TRAM flaps and 76 patients who had undergone prosthetic reconstruction. The length of stay for the TRAM flap group, including all subsequent admissions for each patient, ranged from 2 to 24 days (mean, 6.25 days), and that for the prosthetic reconstruction group ranged from 0 to 20 days (mean, 4.36 days). Operating room time for the complete multistage reconstructive process for a TRAM flap ranged from 5 hours, 20 minutes to 12 hours, 25 minutes (mean, 7 hours, 34 minutes); with implant-based reconstruction, operating time ranged from 1 hour, 45 minutes to 8 hours, 56 minutes (mean, 4 hours, 6 minutes). With prostheses costing from $600 to $1200, a surgeon's fee of $160/hour, and an assistant's fee of $45/hour, the average cost of TRAM flap reconstructions was $19,607 (range, $11,948 to $49,402), compared with $15,497 for prosthetic reconstructions (range, $6422 to $40,015). The results were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Several factors weigh into the decision as to which reconstructive operation best suits the patient's needs. These factors include surgical risk, potential morbidity, and aesthetic results. On the basis of this review of autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction in an institution where both are performed frequently, during a 10-year period with a mean time elapsed since reconstruction of 7.45 years, prosthetic reconstruction was significantly less expensive.

Achieving a predictable 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: part I. Refining practices by using motion and time study principles

The purpose of this study was to develop techniques to predictably return patients receiving inframammary and axillary, subpectoral breast augmentation to full normal activities within 24 hours of their primary breast augmentation. This 5-year study applies motion and time study principles to refine practices in augmentation mammaplasty to reduce perioperative morbidity and shorten patient recovery. Retrospective data for operative times, medications administered, recovery times, times to discharge, and time to return to normal activities were collected from patient chart reviews and patient contacts from 1982 to 1984 (group 1, n = 16, axillary partial retropectoral augmentations) and 1990 (group 2, n = 16, inframammary partial retropectoral augmentations). Videotapes from operative procedures of groups 1 and 2 were analyzed with macromotion and micromotion study principles, and tables of events were formulated for all operating room personnel, detailing every step of each function they performed. The events tables were then refined into detailed scripts by using motion and time study principles. Scripts were used for surgeon and personnel training and for reference during operative procedures. Extensive changes in all aspects of patient care, including patient education, preparation, operative planning, implant selection, anesthesia techniques, surgical techniques, instrumentation, and postoperative care derived from data and videotape studies of patients in groups 1 and 2 were then applied to a third group of patients (group 3), collecting prospective data over a 3-year period (1998 to 2000). Group 3 (n = 627) data included timed events, medications, and time to return to normal activities. Patients in group 3 had substantially shorter anesthesia, operation, and postanesthesia care unit times and time to discharge and time to return to normal activities compared with groups 1 and 2. Of the patients in group 3, 96 percent were able to return to normal activities, lift their arms above their heads, lift normal-weight objects, and drive their car without any narcotic medications, drains, bandages, special bras, or other adjunctive treatments within 24 hours after their partial retropectoral breast augmentation. Applying motion and time study principles to analysis and refinement of surgeon and personnel actions and surgical techniques resulted in a substantial reduction in perioperative morbidity and a simpler, shorter 24-hour return to normal activities without intercostal blocks, narcotic pain medications, drains, bandages, or other adjunctive devices in 96 percent of 627 augmentation patients.