Literature DB >> 27192352

Economic Impact of Routine Cavity Margins Versus Standard Partial Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Anees B Chagpar1, Nina R Horowitz, Brigid K Killelea, Theodore Tsangaris, Peter Longley, Sonia Grizzle, Michael Loftus, Fangyong Li, Meghan Butler, Karen Stavris, Xiaopan Yao, Malini Harigopal, Veerle Bossuyt, Donald R Lannin, Lajos Pusztai, Amy J Davidoff, Cary P Gross.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare costs associated with excision of routine cavity shave margins (CSM) versus standard partial mastectomy (PM) in patients with breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Excision of CSM reduces re-excision rates by more than 50%. The economic implications of this is, however, unclear.
METHODS: Between October 21, 2011 and November 25, 2013, 235 women undergoing PM for Stage 0-III breast cancer were randomized to undergo either standard PM ("no shave", n = 116) or have additional CSM taken ("shave", n = 119). Costs from both a payer and a hospital perspective were measured for index surgery and breast cancer surgery-related care through subsequent 90 days.
RESULTS: The 2 groups were well-matched in terms of baseline characteristics. Those in the "shave" group had a longer operative time at the initial surgery (median 76 vs 66 min, P < 0.01), but a lower re-excision rate for positive margins (13/119 = 10.9% vs 32/116 = 27.6%, P < 0.01). Actual direct hospital costs associated with operating room time ($1315 vs. $1137, P = 0.03) and pathology costs ($1195 vs $795, P < 0.01) were greater for the initial surgery in patients in the "shave" group. Taking into account the index surgery and the subsequent 90 days, there was no significant difference in cost from either the payer ($10,476 vs $11,219, P = 0.40) or hospital perspective ($5090 vs $5116, P = 0.37) between the "shave" and "no shave" groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall costs were not significantly different between the "shave" and "no shave" groups due to significantly fewer reoperative surgeries in the former.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27192352      PMCID: PMC5605915          DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001799

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  18 in total

1.  Do additional shaved margins at the time of lumpectomy eliminate the need for re-excision?

Authors:  Allyson F Jacobson; Juhi Asad; Susan K Boolbol; Michael P Osborne; Kwadwo Boachie-Adjei; Sheldon M Feldman
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins.

Authors:  John B Osborn; Gary L Keeney; James W Jakub; Amy C Degnim; Judy C Boughey
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 3.  Cost of cancer care: the patient perspective.

Authors:  Paula Kim
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Intraoperative assessment of breast cancer specimens decreases cost and number of reoperations.

Authors:  John M Uecker; Eric H Bui; Kelli H Foulkrod; John P Sabra
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 0.688

5.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Anees B Chagpar; Brigid K Killelea; Theodore N Tsangaris; Meghan Butler; Karen Stavris; Fangyong Li; Xiaopan Yao; Veerle Bossuyt; Malini Harigopal; Donald R Lannin; Lajos Pusztai; Nina R Horowitz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-05-30       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Development of an intraoperative pathology consultation service at a free-standing ambulatory surgical center: clinical and economic impact for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Michael S Sabel; Julie M Jorns; Angela Wu; Jeffrey Myers; Lisa A Newman; Tara M Breslin
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Effect of cavity shaving on reoperation rate following breast-conserving surgery.

Authors:  Ravi Marudanayagam; Rishi Singhal; Bruce Tanchel; Brendan O'Connor; Balapathiran Balasubramanian; Ian Paterson
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2008-10-14       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  Influence of surgical technique on mastectomy and reexcision rates in breast-conserving therapy for cancer.

Authors:  Alison Unzeitig; Anne Kobbermann; Xian-Jin Xie; Jingsheng Yan; David Euhus; Yan Peng; Venetia Sarode; Amy Moldrem; A Marilyn Leitch; Valerie Andrews; Roshni Rao
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-01-16

10.  Rapid intraoperative visualization of breast lesions with γ-glutamyl hydroxymethyl rhodamine green.

Authors:  Hiroki Ueo; Yoshiaki Shinden; Taro Tobo; Ayako Gamachi; Mitsuaki Udo; Hisateru Komatsu; Sho Nambara; Tomoko Saito; Masami Ueda; Hidenari Hirata; Shotaro Sakimura; Yuki Takano; Ryutaro Uchi; Junji Kurashige; Sayuri Akiyoshi; Tomohiro Iguchi; Hidetoshi Eguchi; Keishi Sugimachi; Yoko Kubota; Yuichiro Kai; Kenji Shibuta; Yuko Kijima; Heiji Yoshinaka; Shoji Natsugoe; Masaki Mori; Yoshihiko Maehara; Masayo Sakabe; Mako Kamiya; John W Kakareka; Thomas J Pohida; Peter L Choyke; Hisataka Kobayashi; Hiroaki Ueo; Yasuteru Urano; Koshi Mimori
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-07-13       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic.

Authors:  Maureen P McEvoy; Jeffrey Landercasper; Himani R Naik; Sheldon Feldman
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-12

2.  The Margins' Challenge: Risk Factors of Residual Disease After Breast Conserving Surgery in Early-stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Piero Fregatti; Marco Gipponi; Giulia Atzori; Raffaele DE Rosa; Raquel Diaz; Chiara Cornacchia; Marco Sparavigna; Alessandro Garlaschi; Liliana Belgioia; Alessandra Fozza; Francesca Pitto; Luca Boni; Eva Blondeaux; Francesca Depaoli; Federica Murelli; Simonetta Franchelli; Gabriele Zoppoli; Matteo Lambertini; Daniele Friedman
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2022 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Economic Impact of Reducing Reexcision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health System.

Authors:  Jeffery M Chakedis; Annie Tang; Alison Savitz; Liisa L Lyon; Patricia E Palacios; Brooke Vuong; Maihgan A Kavanagh; Gillian E Kuehner; Sharon B Chang
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 4.339

4.  Intraoperative fluorescence imaging with aminolevulinic acid detects grossly occult breast cancer: a phase II randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Kathryn Ottolino-Perry; Anam Shahid; Stephanie DeLuca; Viktor Son; Mayleen Sukhram; Fannong Meng; Zhihui Amy Liu; Sara Rapic; Nayana Thalanki Anantha; Shirley C Wang; Emilie Chamma; Christopher Gibson; Philip J Medeiros; Safa Majeed; Ashley Chu; Olivia Wignall; Alessandra Pizzolato; Cheryl F Rosen; Liis Lindvere Teene; Danielle Starr-Dunham; Iris Kulbatski; Tony Panzarella; Susan J Done; Alexandra M Easson; Wey L Leong; Ralph S DaCosta
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 6.466

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.