PURPOSE: Preoperative axillary sonography with fine needle aspiration (FNA) in patients with invasive breast cancer identifies patients with nodal metastasis who can be spared further surgery. Indiscriminate use of the diagnostic modality can increase costs and yield inaccurate results. We evaluate the costs associated with the use of highly sensitive axillary ultrasonography in patients with stage ≥T2 tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a decision analysis tree using TreeAge Pro 2009 software comparing direct hospital charges between patients with and without routine use of axillary ultrasound. Base case estimates were derived from our institutional data and compared with those derived from the literature. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to check the validity of our inferences. RESULTS: We found that, for the base case estimate with 35% lymph node positivity in stage ≥T2 tumors and sensitivity of the axillary ultrasound set at 86% with a specificity of 40%, the strategy to perform preoperative axillary ultrasound yielded rollback costs of $15,215, compared with $15,940 for surgery plus sentinel lymph node biopsy (cost difference, $725 per patient favoring axillary ultrasound). On two-way sensitivity analysis, the cost benefit for axillary ultrasound was not seen in patients with a low risk for nodal metastasis. CONCLUSION: The adoption of routine preoperative axillary sonography with FNA is a lower-cost strategy than conventional strategies in patients with stage ≥T2 invasive breast cancer.
PURPOSE: Preoperative axillary sonography with fine needle aspiration (FNA) in patients with invasive breast cancer identifies patients with nodal metastasis who can be spared further surgery. Indiscriminate use of the diagnostic modality can increase costs and yield inaccurate results. We evaluate the costs associated with the use of highly sensitive axillary ultrasonography in patients with stage ≥T2 tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a decision analysis tree using TreeAge Pro 2009 software comparing direct hospital charges between patients with and without routine use of axillary ultrasound. Base case estimates were derived from our institutional data and compared with those derived from the literature. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to check the validity of our inferences. RESULTS: We found that, for the base case estimate with 35% lymph node positivity in stage ≥T2 tumors and sensitivity of the axillary ultrasound set at 86% with a specificity of 40%, the strategy to perform preoperative axillary ultrasound yielded rollback costs of $15,215, compared with $15,940 for surgery plus sentinel lymph node biopsy (cost difference, $725 per patient favoring axillary ultrasound). On two-way sensitivity analysis, the cost benefit for axillary ultrasound was not seen in patients with a low risk for nodal metastasis. CONCLUSION: The adoption of routine preoperative axillary sonography with FNA is a lower-cost strategy than conventional strategies in patients with stage ≥T2 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: Maartje C van Rijk; Eline E Deurloo; Omgo E Nieweg; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Johannes L Peterse; Emiel J T Rutgers; Robert Kröger; Bin B R Kroon Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J Bonnema; A N van Geel; B van Ooijen; S P Mali; S L Tjiam; S C Henzen-Logmans; P I Schmitz; T Wiggers Journal: World J Surg Date: 1997 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: M Catherine Lee; Jennifer Eatrides; Alec Chau; Gang Han; John V Kiluk; Nazanin Khakpour; Charles E Cox; W Bradford Carter; Christine Laronga Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joseph T Davis; Yolanda M Brill; Sam Simmons; Brant C Sachleben; Michael L Cibull; Patrick McGrath; Heather Wright; Edward Romond; Molly Hester; Angela Moore; Luis M Samayoa Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-09-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: A Sapino; P Cassoni; E Zanon; F Fraire; S Croce; C Coluccia; M Donadio; G Bussolati Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-03-10 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: T P J Farrell; N C Adams; M Stenson; P A Carroll; M Griffin; E M Connolly; S A O'Keeffe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 5.315
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