Abhishek Chatterjee1, Ammar Asban2, Michael Jonczyk3, Lilian Chen3, Brian Czerniecki4, Carla S Fisher5. 1. Department of Surgery, Tufts University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: chatterjeeac14@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Tufts University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Breast, Moffit Cancer Center, Tampa, Fl, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Indiana Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Breast cancer surgical treatment may include large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery (LVOS) or mastectomy with free flap reconstruction (MFFR). We investigated the cost-utility between LVOS versus MFFR to determine which approach was most cost-effective. METHODS: A literature review was performed to calculate probabilities for clinical outcomes for each surgical option (LVOS versus MFFR), and to obtain utility scores that were converted into quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as measures for clinical effectiveness. Average Medicare payments were surrogates for cost. A decision tree was constructed and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was used to calculate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The decision tree demonstrates associated QALYs and costs with probabilities used to calculate the ICUR of $3699/QALY with gain of 2.7 QALY at an additional cost of $9987 proving that LVOS is a cost-effective surgical option. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that LVOS became cost-ineffective when its clinical effectiveness had a QALY of less than 30.187. Tornado Diagram Analysis and Monte-Carlo simulation supported our conclusion. CONCLUSION: LVOS is cost-effective when compared to MFFR for the appropriate breast cancer patient. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
PURPOSE:Breast cancer surgical treatment may include large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery (LVOS) or mastectomy with free flap reconstruction (MFFR). We investigated the cost-utility between LVOS versus MFFR to determine which approach was most cost-effective. METHODS: A literature review was performed to calculate probabilities for clinical outcomes for each surgical option (LVOS versus MFFR), and to obtain utility scores that were converted into quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as measures for clinical effectiveness. Average Medicare payments were surrogates for cost. A decision tree was constructed and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was used to calculate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The decision tree demonstrates associated QALYs and costs with probabilities used to calculate the ICUR of $3699/QALY with gain of 2.7 QALY at an additional cost of $9987 proving that LVOS is a cost-effective surgical option. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that LVOS became cost-ineffective when its clinical effectiveness had a QALY of less than 30.187. Tornado Diagram Analysis and Monte-Carlo simulation supported our conclusion. CONCLUSION: LVOS is cost-effective when compared to MFFR for the appropriate breast cancerpatient. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Charlotte Davies; Christopher Holcombe; Joanna Skillman; Lisa Whisker; William Hollingworth; Carmel Conefrey; Nicola Mills; Paul White; Charles Comins; Douglas Macmillan; Patricia Fairbrother; Shelley Potter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Abhishek Chatterjee; Maurice Y Nahabedian; Allen Gabriel; Michael Sporck; Mousam Parekh; David Macarios; Jason Hammer; Steven Sigalove Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-10-26
Authors: Joshua A Bloom; Zachary Erlichman; Sina Foroutanjazi; Zhaneta Beqiraj; Michael M Jonczyk; Sarah M Persing; Abhishek Chatterjee Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-08-19