Comparing costs of standard Breast-Conserving Surgery to Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate two-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.
Breast Cancer
Breast Reconstruction
Breast-Conserving Surgery
Complications
Costs
Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery
Journal
Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS
ISSN: 1878-0539
Titre abrégé: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101264239
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2022
08 2022
Historique:
received:
14
08
2020
revised:
19
02
2022
accepted:
22
02
2022
pubmed:
11
4
2022
medline:
24
8
2022
entrez:
10
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR. This single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed. A total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01). Considering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR.
METHODS
This single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed.
RESULTS
A total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01).
CONCLUSION
Considering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35398000
pii: S1748-6815(22)00130-9
doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.02.050
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2569-2576Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest None declared