Advertisement

Cost-utility analysis of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer

Published:November 28, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.11.130

      Abstract

      Background

      The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer: mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy (BCT), implant breast reconstruction (BR) and autologous-BR.

      Methods

      Patient-level healthcare consumption data and results of a large quality of life (QoL) study from five Dutch hospitals were combined. The cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10-year follow-up period. Costs were assessed from a healthcare provider perspective.

      Results

      BCT resulted in comparable QoL with lower costs compared to implant-BR and autologous-BR and showed better QoL with higher costs than mastectomy (€17,246/QALY). QoL outcomes and costs of especially autologous-BR were affected by the relatively high occurrence of complications. If reconstruction following mastectomy was performed, implant-BR was more cost-effective than autologous-BR.

      Conclusion

      The occurrence of complications had a substantial effect on costs and QoL outcomes of different surgical pathways for breast cancer. When this was taken into account, BCT was most the cost-effective treatment. Even with higher costs and a higher risk of complications, implant-BR and autologous-BR remained cost-effective over mastectomy. This pleas for adapting surgical pathways to individual patient preferences in the trade-off between the risks of complications and expected outcomes.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Surgical Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Wise J.
        Number of UK women who will get breast cancer has risen to one in eight.
        BMJ. 2011; 342: d808
        • DeSantis C.
        • Ma J.
        • Bryan L.
        • Jemal A.
        Breast cancer statistics, 2013.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 64: 52-62
        • Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL)
        Breast cancer: lifetime risk.
        • IKNL
        National guideline on breast cancer.
        Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), 2012
        • Senkus E.
        • Kyriakides S.
        • Ohno S.
        • Penault-Llorca F.
        • Poortmans P.
        • Rutgers E.
        • et al.
        Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.
        Ann Oncol. 2015; 26: v8-v30
        • van Maaren M.C.
        • de Munck L.
        • de Bock G.H.
        • Jobsen J.J.
        • van Dalen T.
        • Linn S.C.
        • et al.
        10 year survival after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in early breast cancer in The Netherlands: a population-based study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 1158-1170
        • Fischer B.
        • Andersen S.
        • Bryant J.
        • Margolese R.G.
        • Deutsch M.
        • Er F.
        • et al.
        Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 1233-1241
        • Litière S.
        • Werutsky G.
        • Fentiman I.S.
        • Rutgers E.
        • Christiaens M.R.
        • Van Limbergen E.
        • et al.
        Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I–II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial.
        Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13: 412-419
        • Katz S.J.
        • Lantz P.M.
        • Janz N.K.
        • Fagerlin A.
        • Schwartz K.
        • Liu L.
        • et al.
        Patient involvement in surgery treatment decisions for breast cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 5526-5533
        • Cordeiro P.G.
        Breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2008; : 1590-1601
        • Kouwenberg C.A.E.
        • de Ligt K.M.
        • Kranenburg L.W.
        • Rakhorst H.
        • de Leeuw D.
        • Siesling S.
        • et al.
        Long-term health-related quality of life after four common surgical treatment options for breast cancer and the effect of complications – a retrospective patient-reported survey among 1871 patients.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020; (Accepted, article ahead of print; scheduled for publication July 2020)
        • Mureau M.A.M.
        Nederlandse Vereniging voor Plastische Chirurgie (NVPC). Dutch breast reconstruction guideline.
        J Plast Reconstr Aes. 2018; : 290-304
        • Tondu T.
        • Tjalma W.A.A.
        • Thiessen F.E.F.
        Breast reconstruction after mastectomy.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; (article in press)
        • Damen T.H.
        • Wei W.
        • Mureau M.A.M.
        • Tjong-Joe-Wai R.
        • Hofer S.O.
        • Essink-Bot M.L.
        • et al.
        Medium-term cost analysis of breast reconstructions in a single Dutch centre: a comparison of implants, implants preceded by tissue expansion, LD transpositions and DIEP flaps.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2011; 64: 1043-1053
        • Bennett K.G.
        • Qi J.
        • Kim H.M.
        • Hamill J.B.
        • Pusic A.L.
        • Wilkins E.G.
        Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction.
        JAMA surgery. 2018;
        • Pinsolle V.
        • Grinfeder C.
        • Mathoulin-Pelissier S.
        • Faucher A.
        Complications analysis of 266 immediate breast reconstructions.
        J Plast Reconstr Aes. 2006; 59: 1017-1024
        • Robertson S.
        • Wengstrom Y.
        • Eriksen C.
        • Sandelin K.
        Breast surgeons performing immediate breast reconstruction with implants - assessment of resource-use and patient-reported outcome measures.
        Breast. 2012; 21: 590-596
        • Jeevan R.
        • Cromwell D.A.
        • Browne J.P.
        • Caddy C.M.
        • Pereira J.
        • Sheppard C.
        • et al.
        Findings of a national comparative audit of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery in England.
        J Plast Reconstr Aes. 2014; 67: 1333-1344
        • Mureau M.A.M.
        • van der Hulst R.R.W.J.
        • Woerdeman L.A.E.
        • van Leeuwenhoek A.
        • van Turnhout A.A.W.M.
        • Posch N.A.S.
        • et al.
        Dutch breast reconstruction guideline.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2018; 71: 290-304
        • Drummond M.F.
        • Sculpher M.J.
        • Claxton K.
        • Stoddart G.L.
        • Torrance G.W.
        Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes.
        Oxford university press, 2015
        • Ara R.
        • Wailoo A.
        NICE DSU Technical Support Document 12: the use of health state utility values in decision models.
        School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK2011
        • Brazier J.
        • Longworth L.
        NICE DSU technical support document 8: an introduction to the measurement and valuation of health for NICE submissions.
        NICE Decision Support Unit, London2011
        • Nederland Z.
        Richtlijn voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg.
        ([Internet]) Zorginstituut Nederland, Diemen2015
        • Hakkaart-van Roijen L.
        • Van der Linden N.
        • Bouwmans C.
        • Kanters T.
        • Tan S.S.
        Kostenhandleiding: methodologie van kostenonderzoek en referentieprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. In opdracht van Zorginstituut Nederland Geactualiseerde versie.
        ([Internet])2015
        • Excellence NIfC
        Guide to the methods of technology appraisal.
        • Khajuria A.
        • Prokopenko M.
        • Greenfield M.
        • Smith O.
        • Pusic A.L.
        • Mosahebi A.
        A meta-analysis of clinical, patient-reported outcomes and cost of DIEP versus implant-based breast reconstruction.
        Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open. 2019; 7 ([Internet])https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002486
        • Faria R.
        • Gomes M.
        • Epstein D.
        • White I.R.
        A Guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32 ([Internet]): 1157-1170https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3
        • Spear S.L.
        • Mardini S.
        • Ganz J.C.
        Resource cost comparison of implant-based breast reconstruction versus TRAM flap breast reconstruction.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003; 112: 101-105
        • Atherton D.D.
        • Hills A.J.
        • Moradi P.
        • Muirhead N.
        • Wood S.H.
        The economic viability of breast reconstruction in the UK: comparison of a single surgeon’s experience of implant; LD; TRAM and DIEP based reconstructions in 274 patients.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2011; 64: 710-715
        • Matros E.
        • Albornoz C.R.
        • Razdan S.N.
        • Mehrara B.J.
        • Macadam S.A.
        • Ro T.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of implants versus autologous perforator flaps using the BREAST-Q.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 135: 937-946
        • Damen T.H.
        • Wei W.
        • Mureau M.A.
        • Tjong-Joe-Wai R.
        • Hofer S.O.
        • Essink-Bot M.L.
        • et al.
        Medium-term cost analysis of breast reconstructions in a single Dutch centre: a comparison of implants, implants preceded by tissue expansion, LD transpositions and DIEP flaps.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2011 Aug; 64 ([Internet]): 1043-1053https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.12.028
        • Grover R.
        • Padula W.V.
        • Van Vliet M.
        • Ridgway E.B.
        Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 132 (709e-23e)
        • Fischer J.P.
        • Wes A.M.
        • Nelson J.A.
        • Basta M.
        • Rohrbach J.I.
        • Wu L.C.
        • et al.
        Propensity-matched, longitudinal outcomes analysis of complications and cost: comparing abdominal free flaps and implant-based breast reconstruction.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2014; 219: 303-312
        • Lagares-Borrego A.
        • Gacto-Sanchez P.
        • Infante-Cossio P.
        • Barrera-Pulido F.
        • Sicilia-Castro D.
        • Gomez-Cia T.
        A comparison of long-term cost and clinical outcomes between the two-stage sequence expander/prosthesis and autologous deep inferior epigastric flap methods for breast reconstruction in a public hospital.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2016; 69 ([Internet]): 196-205https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.027
        • Lemaine V.
        • Schilz S.R.
        • Van Houten H.K.
        • Zhu L.
        • Habermann E.B.
        • Boughey J.C.
        Autologous breast reconstruction versus implant-based reconstruction: how do long-term costs and health care use compare?.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020; 145: 303-311
        • Thoma A.
        • Veltri K.
        • Khuthaila D.
        • Rockwell G.
        • Duku E.
        Comparison of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 113: 1650-1661
        • Gray A.M.
        • Clarke P.M.
        • Wolstenholme J.L.
        • Wordsworth S.
        Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare.
        Oxford University Press, 2010
        • Versteegh M.M.
        • Leunis A.
        • Uyl-de Groot C.A.
        • Stolk E.A.
        Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden?.
        Value Health. 2012; 15: 504-513
        • Tonseth K.A.
        • Hokland B.M.
        • Tindholdt T.T.
        • Abyholm F.E.
        • Stavem K.
        Quality of life, patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome after breast reconstruction using DIEP flap or expandable breast implant.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2008; 61: 1188-1194
        • Bennett K.G.
        • Qi J.
        • Kim H.M.
        • Hamill J.B.
        • Pusic A.L.
        • Wilkins E.G.
        Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction.
        JAMA Surgery. 2018; 153 ([Internet]): 901-908https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1687
        • van Maaren M.C.
        • de Munck L.
        • de Bock G.H.
        • Jobsen J.J.
        • van Dalen T.
        • Linn S.C.
        • et al.
        10 year survival after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in early breast cancer in The Netherlands: a population-based study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 1158-1170
        • MacNeil Vroomen J.
        • Eekhout I.
        • Dijkgraaf M.G.
        • van Hout H.
        • de Rooij S.E.
        • Heymans M.W.
        • et al.
        Multiple imputation strategies for zero-inflated cost data in economic evaluations: which method works best?.
        Eur J Health Econ. 2016; 17 ([Internet]) (2016/11/01): 939-950https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-015-0734-5
        • Statline C.
        Statline. Opgehaald van CBS.
        • Integraal Kankercentrum N.
        • Versteegh M.M.
        • Vermeulen K.M.
        • Evers S.M.
        • de Wit G.A.
        • Prenger R.
        • Stolk E.A.
        Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in health.
        ([Internet])2016https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003
        • Canette I.
        • Marchenko Y.
        StataCorp. Combining results other than coefficients in e(b) with multiply imputed data.
        • Tsoi B.
        • Ziolkowski N.I.
        • Thoma A.
        • Campbell K.
        • O’Reilly D.
        • Goeree R.
        Safety of tissue expander/implant versus autologous abdominal tissue breast reconstruction in postmastectomy breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Feb; 133 ([Internet]): 234-249https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000436847.94408.11