Jeffery M Chakedis1, Annie Tang2, Alison Savitz1, Liisa L Lyon3, Patricia E Palacios4, Brooke Vuong1, Maihgan A Kavanagh1, Gillian E Kuehner1, Sharon B Chang5,6. 1. Department of General Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), Oakland, CA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, East Highland Hospital, Oakland, CA, USA. 3. Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, CA, USA. 4. Enterprise Business Services, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Oakland, CA, USA. 5. Department of General Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), Oakland, CA, USA. Sharon.B.Chang@kp.org. 6. Department of Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Fremont, Fremont, CA, USA. Sharon.B.Chang@kp.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reexcision after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is costly for patients, but few studies have captured the economic burden to a healthcare system. We quantified operating room (OR) charges as well as OR time and then modeled expected savings of a reexcision reduction initiative. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review of all breast cancer patients with BCS between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Operating room charges of disposable supplies and implants as well as operative time were calculated. RESULTS: During the 5-year period, the 8804 patients who underwent BCS, 1628 (18.5%) required reexcision. The reexcision cohort was younger (61 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (23.7% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), and had larger tumors (T1+T2 73.2% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.001). Reexcision costs represented 39% of total costs, the cost per patient for surgery was fourfold higher for reexcision patients. Reexcision operations comprised 14% of total operating room (OR) time (1848 of 13,030 hours). The reexcision rate for 54 surgeons varied from 7.2-39.0% with 46% (n = 25) having a reexcision rate >20%. A model simulating reducing reexcision rates to 20% or below for all surgeons reduced the reexcision rate to 16.2% overall. Using per procedure data, the model predicted a decrease in reexcision operations by 18% (327 operations), OR costs by 14% ($287,534), and OR time by 11% (204 hours). CONCLUSIONS: Reexcision after BCS represents 39% of direct OR costs and 14% of OR time in our healthcare system. Modest improvements in surgeon reexcision rates may lead to significant economic and OR time savings.
BACKGROUND: Reexcision after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is costly for patients, but few studies have captured the economic burden to a healthcare system. We quantified operating room (OR) charges as well as OR time and then modeled expected savings of a reexcision reduction initiative. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review of all breast cancer patients with BCS between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Operating room charges of disposable supplies and implants as well as operative time were calculated. RESULTS: During the 5-year period, the 8804 patients who underwent BCS, 1628 (18.5%) required reexcision. The reexcision cohort was younger (61 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (23.7% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), and had larger tumors (T1+T2 73.2% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.001). Reexcision costs represented 39% of total costs, the cost per patient for surgery was fourfold higher for reexcision patients. Reexcision operations comprised 14% of total operating room (OR) time (1848 of 13,030 hours). The reexcision rate for 54 surgeons varied from 7.2-39.0% with 46% (n = 25) having a reexcision rate >20%. A model simulating reducing reexcision rates to 20% or below for all surgeons reduced the reexcision rate to 16.2% overall. Using per procedure data, the model predicted a decrease in reexcision operations by 18% (327 operations), OR costs by 14% ($287,534), and OR time by 11% (204 hours). CONCLUSIONS: Reexcision after BCS represents 39% of direct OR costs and 14% of OR time in our healthcare system. Modest improvements in surgeon reexcision rates may lead to significant economic and OR time savings.
Authors: Meghan R Flanagan; Emily C Zabor; Anya Romanoff; Sarah Fuzesi; Michelle Stempel; Babak J Mehrara; Monica Morrow; Andrea L Pusic; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Zahraa Al-Hilli; Kristine M Thomsen; Elizabeth B Habermann; James W Jakub; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Katerina Kaczmarski; Peiqi Wang; Richard Gilmore; Heidi N Overton; David M Euhus; Lisa K Jacobs; Mehran Habibi; Melissa Camp; Matthew J Weiss; Martin A Makary Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ramsey I Cutress; Stuart A McIntosh; Shelley Potter; Amit Goyal; Cliona C Kirwan; James Harvey; Adele Francis; Amtul R Carmichael; Raghavan Vidya; Jayant S Vaidya; Patricia Fairbrother; John R Benson; Malcolm W R Reed Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jeffrey Landercasper; Andrew J Borgert; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Hiram Cody; Sheldon Feldman; Caprice Greenberg; Jared Linebarger; Barbara Pockaj; Lee Wilke Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jeffery M Chakedis; Annie Tang; Gillian E Kuehner; Brooke Vuong; Liisa L Lyon; Lucinda A Romero; Benjamin M Raber; Melinda M Mortenson; Veronica C Shim; Nicole M Datrice-Hill; Jennifer R McEvoy; Vignesh A Arasu; Dorota J Wisner; Sharon B Chang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 5.344