INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer treatment costs are rising, and identification of high-value oncology treatment strategies is increasingly needed. We sought to determine the potential cost savings associated with an evidence-based radiation treatment (RT) approach among women with early-stage breast cancer treated in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified women with T1-T2 N0 invasive breast cancers treated with lumpectomy during 2011. Adjuvant RT regimens were categorized as conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation, hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation, and omission of RT. National RT patterns were determined, and RT costs were estimated using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. RESULTS: Within the 43,247 patient cohort, 64% (n = 27,697) received conventional RT, 13.3% (n = 5,724) received hypofractionated RT, 1.1% (n = 477) received accelerated partial-breast irradiation, and 21.6% (n = 9,349) received no RT. Among patients who were eligible for shorter RT or omission of RT, 57% underwent treatment with longer, more costly regimens. Estimated RT expenditures of the national cohort approximated $420.2 million during 2011, compared with $256.2 million had women been treated with the least expensive regimens for which they were safely eligible. This demonstrated a potential annual savings of $164.0 million, a 39% reduction in associated treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Among women with early-stage breast cancer after lumpectomy, use of an evidence-based approach illustrates an example of high-value care within oncology. Identification of high-value cancer treatment strategies is critically important to maintaining excellence in cancer care while reducing health care expenditures.
INTRODUCTION:Breast cancer treatment costs are rising, and identification of high-value oncology treatment strategies is increasingly needed. We sought to determine the potential cost savings associated with an evidence-based radiation treatment (RT) approach among women with early-stage breast cancer treated in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified women with T1-T2 N0 invasive breast cancers treated with lumpectomy during 2011. Adjuvant RT regimens were categorized as conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation, hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation, and omission of RT. National RT patterns were determined, and RT costs were estimated using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. RESULTS: Within the 43,247 patient cohort, 64% (n = 27,697) received conventional RT, 13.3% (n = 5,724) received hypofractionated RT, 1.1% (n = 477) received accelerated partial-breast irradiation, and 21.6% (n = 9,349) received no RT. Among patients who were eligible for shorter RT or omission of RT, 57% underwent treatment with longer, more costly regimens. Estimated RT expenditures of the national cohort approximated $420.2 million during 2011, compared with $256.2 million had women been treated with the least expensive regimens for which they were safely eligible. This demonstrated a potential annual savings of $164.0 million, a 39% reduction in associated treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Among women with early-stage breast cancer after lumpectomy, use of an evidence-based approach illustrates an example of high-value care within oncology. Identification of high-value cancer treatment strategies is critically important to maintaining excellence in cancer care while reducing health care expenditures.
Authors: B Fisher; J Dignam; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; J Costantino; W Poller; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Deutsch; R Margolese; N Dimitrov; M Kavanah Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Paul Abrahamse; Sarah T Hawley; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Melissa S Camp; Rachel A Greenup; Alphonse Taghian; Suzanne B Coopey; Michelle Specht; Michele Gadd; Kevin Hughes; Barbara L Smith Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Timothy Whelan; Robert MacKenzie; Jim Julian; Mark Levine; Wendy Shelley; Laval Grimard; Barbara Lada; Himu Lukka; Francisco Perera; Anthony Fyles; Ethan Laukkanen; Sunil Gulavita; Veronique Benk; Barbara Szechtman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: E Shelley Hwang; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Barbara Fowble; Christina A Clarke Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: N Mittmann; S Y Cheng; N Liu; S J Seung; F E Saxena; C DeAngelis; N J Look Hong; C C Earle; M C Cheung; N Leighl; N Coburn; W K Evans Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Nicole Mittmann; Ning Liu; Stephanie Y Cheng; Soo Jin Seung; Farah E Saxena; Nicole J Look Hong; Craig C Earle; Matthew C Cheung; Natasha B Leighl; Natalie G Coburn; Carlo DeAngelis; William K Evans Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-03-16
Authors: Michael Green; Samantha J Van Nest; Emilie Soisson; Kathryn Huber; Yixiang Liao; William McBride; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister; Michael C Joiner Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Xiao Xu; Pamela R Soulos; Jeph Herrin; Shi-Yi Wang; Craig Evan Pollack; Suzanne B Evans; James B Yu; Cary P Gross Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-10-18 Impact factor: 3.734