PURPOSE: Preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasound (US) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy can identify a proportion of node-positive patients and avoid sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery and direct surgical treatment. We compared the costs with preoperative US/FNA to without US/FNA (standard of care) for invasive breast cancer. METHODS: Using decision-analytic software we constructed a model to assess the costs associated with the two preoperative strategies. Diagnostic test sensitivities and specificities were obtained from literature review. Costs were derived from Medicare payment rates and actual resource utilization. Base-case results were fully probabilistic to capture parameter uncertainty in economic results. RESULTS: Base-case results estimate total mean costs per patient of $10,947 ("$" indicates US dollars throughout) with the US/FNA strategy and $10,983 with standard of care, an incremental cost savings of $36, on average, per patient [95% confidence interval (CI) of cost difference: -$248 to $179]. Most (63%) of the simulations resulted in cost saving with axillary US/FNA. One-way sensitivity analyses suggest that results are sensitive to assumed diagnostic and surgical costs and selected diagnostic test parameters. US/FNA approach was similar in costs or cost saving relative to the standard of care for all tumor stages. CONCLUSIONS: The additional cost of performing axillary US with possible FNA in every patient is balanced, on average, by the savings from avoiding SLN in cases where metastasis can be documented preoperatively. Routine use of preoperative axillary US with FNA to guide surgical planning can decrease the overall cost of patient care for invasive breast cancer.
PURPOSE: Preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasound (US) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy can identify a proportion of node-positive patients and avoid sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery and direct surgical treatment. We compared the costs with preoperative US/FNA to without US/FNA (standard of care) for invasive breast cancer. METHODS: Using decision-analytic software we constructed a model to assess the costs associated with the two preoperative strategies. Diagnostic test sensitivities and specificities were obtained from literature review. Costs were derived from Medicare payment rates and actual resource utilization. Base-case results were fully probabilistic to capture parameter uncertainty in economic results. RESULTS: Base-case results estimate total mean costs per patient of $10,947 ("$" indicates US dollars throughout) with the US/FNA strategy and $10,983 with standard of care, an incremental cost savings of $36, on average, per patient [95% confidence interval (CI) of cost difference: -$248 to $179]. Most (63%) of the simulations resulted in cost saving with axillary US/FNA. One-way sensitivity analyses suggest that results are sensitive to assumed diagnostic and surgical costs and selected diagnostic test parameters. US/FNA approach was similar in costs or cost saving relative to the standard of care for all tumor stages. CONCLUSIONS: The additional cost of performing axillary US with possible FNA in every patient is balanced, on average, by the savings from avoiding SLN in cases where metastasis can be documented preoperatively. Routine use of preoperative axillary US with FNA to guide surgical planning can decrease the overall cost of patient care for invasive breast cancer.
Authors: Savitri Krishnamurthy; Nour Sneige; Deepak G Bedi; Beth S Edieken; Bruno D Fornage; Henry M Kuerer; S Eva Singletary; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A Fernández; M Cortés; E Benito; D Azpeitia; L Prieto; A Moreno; Y Ricart; J Mora; A Escobedo; J Martín Comín Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: E E Deurloo; P J Tanis; K G A Gilhuijs; S H Muller; R Kröger; J L Peterse; E J Th Rutgers; R Valdés Olmos; L J Schultze Kool Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Kelly K Hunt; Judy C Boughey; Roland Bassett; Amy C Degnim; Robyn Harrell; Min Yi; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Merrick I Ross; Gildy V Babiera; Henry M Kuerer; Rosa F Hwang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kiran K Turaga; Alec Chau; Jennifer M Eatrides; John V Kiluk; Nazanin Khakpour; Christine Laronga; M Catherine Lee Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-05-14
Authors: Abigail S Caudle; Henry M Kuerer; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Kyungmin Shin; Brian P Hobbs; Junsheng Ma; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Ashley C Washington; Sarah M DeSnyder; Dalliah M Black; Kelly K Hunt; Wei T Yang Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hayley Standage; Alyssa R Hersh; Aaron Caughey; Matthew Taylor; John Vetto; Dale Han Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Karla V Ballman; Huong T Le-Petross; Linda M McCall; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; Eric C Feliberti; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Aubriana M McEvoy; Steven Poplack; Katelin Nickel; Margaret A Olsen; Foluso Ademuyiwa; Imran Zoberi; Elizabeth Odom; Jennifer Yu; Su-Hsin Chang; William E Gillanders Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 4.872