PURPOSE: To compare the healthcare costs of women with unilateral breast cancer who underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) with those of women who did not. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 904 women treated for stage I-III breast cancer with or without CPM. Women were matched according to age, year at diagnosis, stage, and receipt of chemotherapy. We included healthcare costs starting from the date of surgery to 24 months. We identified whether care was immediate or delayed (CPM within 6 months or 6-24 months after initial surgery, respectively). Costs were converted to approximate Medicare reimbursement values and adjusted for inflation. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of CPM on total breast cancer care costs adjusting for patient characteristics and accounting for matched pairs. RESULTS: The mean difference between the CPM and no-CPM matched groups was $3,573 (standard error [SE] $455) for professional costs, $4,176 (SE $1,724) for technical costs, and $7,749 (SE $2,069) for total costs. For immediate and delayed CPM, the mean difference for total costs was $6,528 (SE $2,243) and $16,744 (SE $5,017), respectively. In multivariable analysis, the CPM group had a statistically significant increase of 16.9 % in mean total costs compared with the no-CPM group (p < 0.0001). Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu-positive status, receipt of radiation, and reconstruction were associated with increases in total costs. CONCLUSIONS: CPM significantly increases short-term healthcare costs for women with unilateral breast cancer. These patient-level cost results can be used for future studies that evaluate the influence of costs of CPM on decision making.
PURPOSE: To compare the healthcare costs of women with unilateral breast cancer who underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) with those of women who did not. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 904 women treated for stage I-III breast cancer with or without CPM. Women were matched according to age, year at diagnosis, stage, and receipt of chemotherapy. We included healthcare costs starting from the date of surgery to 24 months. We identified whether care was immediate or delayed (CPM within 6 months or 6-24 months after initial surgery, respectively). Costs were converted to approximate Medicare reimbursement values and adjusted for inflation. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of CPM on total breast cancer care costs adjusting for patient characteristics and accounting for matched pairs. RESULTS: The mean difference between the CPM and no-CPM matched groups was $3,573 (standard error [SE] $455) for professional costs, $4,176 (SE $1,724) for technical costs, and $7,749 (SE $2,069) for total costs. For immediate and delayed CPM, the mean difference for total costs was $6,528 (SE $2,243) and $16,744 (SE $5,017), respectively. In multivariable analysis, the CPM group had a statistically significant increase of 16.9 % in mean total costs compared with the no-CPM group (p < 0.0001). Humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu-positive status, receipt of radiation, and reconstruction were associated with increases in total costs. CONCLUSIONS: CPM significantly increases short-term healthcare costs for women with unilateral breast cancer. These patient-level cost results can be used for future studies that evaluate the influence of costs of CPM on decision making.
Authors: Peter J Neumann; Jennifer A Palmer; Eric Nadler; Chihui Fang; Peter Ubel Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Marlene H Frost; Jeffrey M Slezak; Nho V Tran; Constance I Williams; Joanne L Johnson; John E Woods; Paul M Petty; John H Donohue; Clive S Grant; Jeff A Sloan; Thomas A Sellers; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Khoo; S S Kroll; G P Reece; M J Miller; G R Evans; G L Robb; B J Baldwin; B G Wang; M A Schusterman Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Abenaa M Brewster; Isabelle Bedrosian; Patricia A Parker; Wenli Dong; Susan K Peterson; Scott B Cantor; Melissa Crosby; Yu Shen Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Natalie B Jones; John Wilson; Linda Kotur; Julie Stephens; William B Farrar; Doreen M Agnese Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: John A F Zupancic; Douglas K Richardson; Bernie J O'Brien; Eric C Eichenwald; Milton C Weinstein Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: David W Lim; Helene Retrouvey; Isabel Kerrebijn; Kate Butler; Anne C O'Neill; Tulin D Cil; Toni Zhong; Stefan O P Hofer; David R McCready; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mary C Schroeder; Yu-Yu Tien; Lillian M Erdahl; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Brahmendra R Viyyuri; Sonia L Sugg Journal: Surgery Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Jing Jiang; Ya-ChenTina Shih; Sharon H Giordano; Jinhai Huo; Reshma Jagsi; Adeyiza O Momoh; Abigail S Caudle; Kelly K Hunt; Simona F Shaitelman; Thomas A Buchholz; Shervin M Shirvani Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Maria K Venetis; Erina L MacGeorge; Dadrie F Baptiste; Ashton Mouton; Lorin B Friley; Rebekah Pastor; Kristen Hatten; Janaka Lagoo; Monet W Bowling; Susan E Clare Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Michael G Schrauder; Lisa Brunel-Geuder; Lothar Häberle; Marius Wunderle; Juliane Hoyer; Roland Csorba; André Reis; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael P Lux Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 2.175