Comparing costs of standard Breast-Conserving Surgery to Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate two-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR. METHODS: This single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Considering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified.

The anterior LICAP flap: a design option for oncoplastic breast reconstruction.

The purpose was to describe the operation technique of an anterior lateral intercostal artery perforator (LICAP) flap and analyse outcomes and complications. An anterior LICAP flap is a good and safe alternative for direct oncoplastic breast reconstruction. It is a reliable flap that provides sufficient volume and good esthetic outcomes.

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.

Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life after Four Common Surgical Treatment Options for Breast Cancer and the Effect of Complications: A Retrospective Patient-Reported Survey among 1871 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Differences in quality-of-life outcomes after different surgical breast cancer treatment options, including breast reconstruction, are relevant for counseling individual patients in clinical decision-making, and for (societal) evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analyses. However, current literature shows contradictory results, because of use of different patient-reported outcome measures and study designs with limited patient numbers. The authors set out to improve this evidence using patient-reported outcome measures in a large, cross-sectional study for different surgical breast cancer treatment options. METHODS: Quality of life was assessed through the EQ-5D-5L, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and BR23, and the BREAST-Q. Patients with different treatments were compared after propensity-weighted adjustment of pretreatment differences. The EQ-5D was used to value the effect of surgical complications. RESULTS: A total of 1871 breast cancer patients participated (breast-conserving surgery, n = 615; mastectomy, n = 507; autologous reconstruction, n = 330; and implant-based reconstruction, n = 419). Mastectomy patients reported the lowest EQ-5D score (mastectomy, 0.805, breast-conserving surgery, 0.844; autologous reconstruction, 0.849; and implant-based reconstruction, 0.850) and functioning scores of the C30 questionnaire. On the BREAST-Q, autologous reconstruction patients had higher mean Satisfaction with Outcome, Satisfaction with Breasts, and Sexual Well-being scores than implant-based reconstruction patients. Complications in autologous reconstruction patients resulted in a substantially lower quality of life than in implant-based reconstruction patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the added value of breast conservation and reconstruction compared with mastectomy; however, differences among breast-conserving surgery, implant-based reconstruction, and autologous breast reconstruction were subtle. Complications resulted in poorer health-related quality of life.