Mervi Rautalin1, Tiina Jahkola2, Risto P Roine3. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Mervi.rautalin@hus.fi. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 3. Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Different treatment options of breast cancer (BC) are dependent on certain cancer- and patient-related features. The cost of treatment varies among patients. This study describes the cost distribution in the treatment of Finnish patients with BC for two years and relates the costs to important outcomes of modern BC treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 1,065 patients was measured prospectively at baseline, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months thereafter with a generic (15D) and a disease-specific (EORTC QLQ C-30 BR23) HRQoL-instrument. Clinical data and costs of care were collected from hospital records. Patients were divided into four groups according to the surgical approach: breast-conserving surgery (BCS n=661), mastectomy (n=319), immediate reconstruction (IBR n=51), and delayed reconstruction (DR n=34), and the costs according to the clinic responsible for treatment: oncological-, breast surgery-, and plastic surgery unit. Total costs of care during follow-up are presented groupwise alongside HRQoL results. RESULTS: The mean total cost for BC surgery was 6,015 Euros for BCS, 8,114 euros for mastectomy, 18,217 Euros for IBR, and 19,041 Euros for DR. BCS, IBR, and DR produced good HRQoL. Mastectomy patients had the lowest overall HRQoL and highest cost accumulation at the oncology unit. HRQoL of IBR and DR patients was similar. CONCLUSION: DR produces good HRQoL but generates the highest costs of care. If patients that require reconstruction could be identified earlier and offered IBR instead of mastectomy followed by later DR, the costs of care might be reduced.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Different treatment options of breast cancer (BC) are dependent on certain cancer- and patient-related features. The cost of treatment varies among patients. This study describes the cost distribution in the treatment of Finnish patients with BC for two years and relates the costs to important outcomes of modern BC treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 1,065 patients was measured prospectively at baseline, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months thereafter with a generic (15D) and a disease-specific (EORTC QLQ C-30 BR23) HRQoL-instrument. Clinical data and costs of care were collected from hospital records. Patients were divided into four groups according to the surgical approach: breast-conserving surgery (BCS n=661), mastectomy (n=319), immediate reconstruction (IBR n=51), and delayed reconstruction (DR n=34), and the costs according to the clinic responsible for treatment: oncological-, breast surgery-, and plastic surgery unit. Total costs of care during follow-up are presented groupwise alongside HRQoL results. RESULTS: The mean total cost for BC surgery was 6,015 Euros for BCS, 8,114 euros for mastectomy, 18,217 Euros for IBR, and 19,041 Euros for DR. BCS, IBR, and DR produced good HRQoL. Mastectomy patients had the lowest overall HRQoL and highest cost accumulation at the oncology unit. HRQoL of IBR and DR patients was similar. CONCLUSION: DR produces good HRQoL but generates the highest costs of care. If patients that require reconstruction could be identified earlier and offered IBR instead of mastectomy followed by later DR, the costs of care might be reduced.
Keywords:
Breast cancer surgery; breast cancer health economics; breast conserving surgery; breast reconstruction; health-related quality of life; quality of life
Authors: Jyri-Pekka Koskinen; Niilo Färkkilä; Harri Sintonen; Tiina Saarto; Kimmo Taari; Risto P Roine Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Laura Biganzoli; Lorenza Marotti; Christopher D Hart; Luigi Cataliotti; Bruno Cutuli; Thorsten Kühn; Robert E Mansel; Antonio Ponti; Philip Poortmans; Peter Regitnig; Jos A van der Hage; Yvonne Wengström; Marco Rosselli Del Turco Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Casimir A E Kouwenberg; Marc A M Mureau; Leonieke W Kranenburg; Hinne Rakhorst; Daniëlle de Leeuw; Taco M A L Klem; Linetta B Koppert; Isaac Corro Ramos; Jan J Busschbach Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Rachel A Greenup; Christel Rushing; Laura Fish; Brittany M Campbell; Lisa Tolnitch; Terry Hyslop; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Stephanie B Wheeler; S Yousuf Zafar; Evan R Myers; E Shelley Hwang Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Paulus Torkki; Riikka-Leena Leskelä; Miika Linna; Suvi Mäklin; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Petri Bono; Vesa Kataja; Sakari Karjalainen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Eija Roine; Niilo Färkkilä; Harri Sintonen; Kimmo Taari; Risto P Roine; Tiina Saarto Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: P S Hall; P Hamilton; C T Hulme; D M Meads; H Jones; A Newsham; J Marti; A F Smith; H Mason; G Velikova; L Ashley; P Wright Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Gerald W Prager; Sofia Braga; Branislav Bystricky; Camilla Qvortrup; Carmen Criscitiello; Ece Esin; Gabe S Sonke; Guillem Argilés Martínez; Jean-Sebastian Frenel; Michalis Karamouzis; Michiel Strijbos; Ozan Yazici; Paolo Bossi; Susana Banerjee; Teresa Troiani; Alexandru Eniu; Fortunato Ciardiello; Josep Tabernero; Christoph C Zielinski; Paolo G Casali; Fatima Cardoso; Jean-Yves Douillard; Svetlana Jezdic; Keith McGregor; Gracemarie Bricalli; Malvika Vyas; André Ilbawi Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2018-02-02