Yimeng Zhang1, Jean Seely2, Erin Cordeiro1, Joshua Hefler3, Kednapa Thavorn4,5,6, Mukta Mahajan2, Sue Domina2, Jon Aro7, Andrea Marie Ibrahim4, Angel Arnaout1, Denis Gravel8, Carolyn Nessim9. 1. Division of General Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada. 5. School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 6. Institute of Clinical and Evaluative Sciences (ICES@Ottawa), Toronto, Canada. 7. Department of Radiation and Laser Safety, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 8. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 9. Division of General Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. cnessim@toh.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the cost and resource use between our first-year experience using breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radioactive seed localization (RSL) and the previous-year standard practice of BCS with wire-guided localization (WGL) for patients with nonpalpable breast cancer at a large Canadian tertiary center. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, data for BCS cases with RSL was collected from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and for BCS cases with WGL from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. RESULTS: The study compared 153 WGL patients with 194 RSL patients. The two groups had no significant demographic differences. The average cost per patient for RSL, including opportunity costs, was $250.90 versus $1130.41 for WGL. Dedicated allocated radiology appointments to RSL increased (9 per day), and fewer radiologists were required for these procedures per day. Patients were transported to the operating room more quickly for RSL procedures (120 vs. 254 min; p < 0.001). Fewer vasovagal reactions occurred after insertion of RSL versus WGL (p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed in terms of surgical time, specimen volume, positive margins, or margin reexcision rates. No significant differences in postoperative complication rates were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, RSL had lower costs than WGL, allowed for more efficient use of radiology scheduling and resources, and had shorter wait times for patients on their day of surgery. In addition, RSL led to fewer vasovagal reactions at insertion. Therefore, RSL should be used instead of WGL given the reduced cost, decreased need of human resources, improved efficiency, and potential benefits to the patient experience.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the cost and resource use between our first-year experience using breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radioactive seed localization (RSL) and the previous-year standard practice of BCS with wire-guided localization (WGL) for patients with nonpalpable breast cancer at a large Canadian tertiary center. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, data for BCS cases with RSL was collected from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and for BCS cases with WGL from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. RESULTS: The study compared 153 WGL patients with 194 RSLpatients. The two groups had no significant demographic differences. The average cost per patient for RSL, including opportunity costs, was $250.90 versus $1130.41 for WGL. Dedicated allocated radiology appointments to RSL increased (9 per day), and fewer radiologists were required for these procedures per day. Patients were transported to the operating room more quickly for RSL procedures (120 vs. 254 min; p < 0.001). Fewer vasovagal reactions occurred after insertion of RSL versus WGL (p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed in terms of surgical time, specimen volume, positive margins, or margin reexcision rates. No significant differences in postoperative complication rates were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, RSL had lower costs than WGL, allowed for more efficient use of radiology scheduling and resources, and had shorter wait times for patients on their day of surgery. In addition, RSL led to fewer vasovagal reactions at insertion. Therefore, RSL should be used instead of WGL given the reduced cost, decreased need of human resources, improved efficiency, and potential benefits to the patient experience.
Authors: Ignacio Pinilla-Pagnon; Belén Pérez-Mies; María Eugenia Reguero; Marco-Tulio Martinez; Miguel Chiva; Silvia Pérez-Rodrigo; Odile Ajuria Illarramendi; Maria Eugenia Rioja Martin; Maria Vicenta Collado; Maria Concepción Sanchez; Juan Manuel Rosa-Rosa; José Palacios Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2018-07-08 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Umar Wazir; Salim Tayeh; Nicholas Perry; Michael Michell; Anmol Malhotra; Kefah Mokbel Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Melanie Lindenberg; Anne van Beek; Valesca Retèl; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Wim van Harten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: James R Harvey; Yit Lim; John Murphy; Miles Howe; Julie Morris; Amit Goyal; Anthony J Maxwell Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Nicole Look Hong; Frances C Wright; Mark Semple; Alexandru M Nicolae; Ananth Ravi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 4.872