OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) compared with the surgical excision for both primary and recurrent basal cell carcinoma (BCC). DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness study performed alongside a prospective randomized clinical trial in which MMS was compared with surgical excision. SETTING: The study was carried out from 1999 to 2002 at the dermatology outpatient clinic of the University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 408 primary (374 patients) and 204 recurrent (191 patients) cases of facial BCC were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean total treatment costs of MMS and surgical excision for both primary and recurrent BCC and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated as the difference in costs between MMS and surgical excision divided by their difference in effectiveness. The resulting ratio is defined as the incremental costs of MMS compared with surgical excision to prevent 1 additional recurrence. RESULTS: Compared with surgical excision, the total treatment costs of MMS are significantly higher (cost difference: primary BCC, 254 euros; 95% confidence interval, 181-324 euros; recurrent BCC, 249 euros; 95% confidence interval, 175-323 euros). For primary BCC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 29,231 euros, while the ratio for recurrent BCC amounted to 8094 euros. The acceptability curves showed that for these ratios, the probability of MMS being more cost-effective than surgical excision never reached 50%. CONCLUSIONS: At present, it does not seem cost-effective to introduce MMS on a large scale for both primary and recurrent BCC. However, because a 5-year period is normally required to determine definite recurrence rates, it is possible that MMS may become a cost-effective treatment for recurrent BCC.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) compared with the surgical excision for both primary and recurrent basal cell carcinoma (BCC). DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness study performed alongside a prospective randomized clinical trial in which MMS was compared with surgical excision. SETTING: The study was carried out from 1999 to 2002 at the dermatology outpatient clinic of the University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 408 primary (374 patients) and 204 recurrent (191 patients) cases of facial BCC were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean total treatment costs of MMS and surgical excision for both primary and recurrent BCC and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated as the difference in costs between MMS and surgical excision divided by their difference in effectiveness. The resulting ratio is defined as the incremental costs of MMS compared with surgical excision to prevent 1 additional recurrence. RESULTS: Compared with surgical excision, the total treatment costs of MMS are significantly higher (cost difference: primary BCC, 254 euros; 95% confidence interval, 181-324 euros; recurrent BCC, 249 euros; 95% confidence interval, 175-323 euros). For primary BCC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 29,231 euros, while the ratio for recurrent BCC amounted to 8094 euros. The acceptability curves showed that for these ratios, the probability of MMS being more cost-effective than surgical excision never reached 50%. CONCLUSIONS: At present, it does not seem cost-effective to introduce MMS on a large scale for both primary and recurrent BCC. However, because a 5-year period is normally required to determine definite recurrence rates, it is possible that MMS may become a cost-effective treatment for recurrent BCC.
Authors: Howard W Rogers; Eric Armbrecht; Brett M Coldiron; John Albertini; Michel McDonald; Scott M Dinehart; Ali Hendi; George Hruza; Scott W Fosko; Brent R Moody Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Brigitte A B Essers; Debby van Helvoort-Postulart; Martin H Prins; Martino Neumann; Carmen D Dirksen Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2010 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Paul R Massey; Sameer Gupta; Brooke E Rothstein; Nellie Konnikov; Meera Mahalingam; Emily S Ruiz; Chrysalyne D Schmults; Abigail Waldman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: M P Treacy; N C Wynne; J L Gale; E Duignan; B Moran; A M Flynn; P Ormond; R Barry; R Khan; P Moriarty; L Cassidy Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Eleni Linos; Rupa Parvataneni; Sarah E Stuart; W John Boscardin; C Seth Landefeld; Mary-Margaret Chren Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 21.873