Wyanne Law1, Nicole Look Hong2,3, Ananth Ravi4, Lisa Day5, Yasmin Somani6, Frances C Wright3, Sharon Nofech-Mozes7,8, William T Tran9, Belinda Curpen5. 1. Postgraduate Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. wyanne.law@mail.utoronto.ca. 2. Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Odette Cancer Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Brachytherapy, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Breast Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Nuclear Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Molecular Diagnostics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 9. Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study models costs in implementing a radioactive seed localization (RSL) program for nonpalpable breast lesions at a large Canadian tertiary hospital to replace existing wire-guided localization (WGL). METHODS: All direct and indirect operating costs of localization per lesion from the hospital's perspective were determined by retrospectively reviewing patient data and costs from January 2014 to December 2016. A budget impact analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to calculate the mean cost per lesion, the minimum and maximum cost per lesion, operational costs, and initial costs. RESULTS: There were 265 WGL lesions in 2014 and 170 RSL lesions in 2016 included in cost calculation. The mean cost per localization was $185 CAD for WGL ($148-$311) and $283 CAD ($245-$517) for RSL using preloaded seeds, adjusted to 2016 Canadian dollars. The annual operational expenditure including all localizations and overhead costs was $49,835 for WGL and $80,803 for RSL. Initial costs for RSL were $22,000, including external training and new equipment purchases. CONCLUSIONS: Our budget impact analysis shows that RSL using preloaded radioactive seeds was more expensive than WGL when considering per-lesion localization costs and specific costs related to radiation safety. Manually loading radioactive seed could be a cost-saving alternative to purchasing preloaded seeds. Our breakdown of costs can provide a framework for other centres to determine which localization method best suit their departments.
BACKGROUND: This study models costs in implementing a radioactive seed localization (RSL) program for nonpalpable breast lesions at a large Canadian tertiary hospital to replace existing wire-guided localization (WGL). METHODS: All direct and indirect operating costs of localization per lesion from the hospital's perspective were determined by retrospectively reviewing patient data and costs from January 2014 to December 2016. A budget impact analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to calculate the mean cost per lesion, the minimum and maximum cost per lesion, operational costs, and initial costs. RESULTS: There were 265 WGL lesions in 2014 and 170 RSL lesions in 2016 included in cost calculation. The mean cost per localization was $185 CAD for WGL ($148-$311) and $283 CAD ($245-$517) for RSL using preloaded seeds, adjusted to 2016 Canadian dollars. The annual operational expenditure including all localizations and overhead costs was $49,835 for WGL and $80,803 for RSL. Initial costs for RSL were $22,000, including external training and new equipment purchases. CONCLUSIONS: Our budget impact analysis shows that RSL using preloaded radioactive seeds was more expensive than WGL when considering per-lesion localization costs and specific costs related to radiation safety. Manually loading radioactive seed could be a cost-saving alternative to purchasing preloaded seeds. Our breakdown of costs can provide a framework for other centres to determine which localization method best suit their departments.
Authors: Linnea Langhans; Tove F Tvedskov; Thomas L Klausen; Maj-Britt Jensen; Maj-Lis Talman; Ilse Vejborg; Cemil Benian; Anne Roslind; Jonas Hermansen; Peter S Oturai; Niels Bentzon; Niels Kroman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Peter J Lovrics; Charlie H Goldsmith; Nicole Hodgson; David McCready; Gabriela Gohla; Colm Boylan; Sylvie Cornacchi; Michael Reedijk Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Lawrence T Dauer; Cynthia Thornton; Daniel Miodownik; Daniel Boylan; Brian Holahan; Valencia King; Edi Brogi; Monica Morrow; Elizabeth A Morris; Jean St Germain Journal: Health Phys Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: N N Y Janssen; J Nijkamp; T Alderliesten; C E Loo; E J T Rutgers; J-J Sonke; M T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Jenevieve H Hughes; Mark C Mason; Richard J Gray; Sarah A McLaughlin; Amy C Degnim; Jack T Fulmer; Barbara A Pockaj; Patricia J Karstaedt; Michael C Roarke Journal: Breast J Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 2.431
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