Surgical options for breast cancer are numerous and span multiple surgical disciplines. Decision analyses aid surgeons in making the most cost-effective choice, thus reducing health care expenditure while maximizing patient outcome. In this study, we aimed to evaluate existing breast surgery cost-effectiveness literature against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) validated scoring system.
Methods
A PRISMA search was performed for cost-effectiveness within breast surgery. Articles were scored with CHEERS criteria on a 0-24 scale and qualitative data were collected. Subgroup analysis was performed comparing pre-CHEERS (published in 2013 or earlier) and post-CHEERS (published in 2014 or later) cohorts. Chi-squared analysis was performed to compare where studies lost points between cohorts.
Results
Of 2279 articles screened, 46 articles were included. The average CHEERS score was 18.18. Points were most often lost for characterizing heterogeneity, followed by discount rate, incremental costs and outcomes, and abstract. Quality-adjusted life year was the most commonly used health outcome, with visual model or analog scales as the most commonly used measure of effectiveness obtained primarily from surgeons or physicians. Most articles characterized uncertainty by deterministic sensitivity analysis, followed by both deterministic and probabilistic, then probabilistic. Average CHEERS scores were similar between pre- and post-CHEERS cohorts (17.67 vs. 18.40, P > .05) There were several significant differences in where articles lost points between pre- and post-CHEERS cohorts.
Discussion
In order to standardize the reporting of results, cost-effectiveness studies in breast surgery should adhere to the current CHEERS criteria and aim to better characterize heterogeneity in their analyses.
MillerKDFidler-BenaoudiaMKeeganTH. Cancer statistics for adolescents and young adults, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:443.
2.
SiegelHippBAShermanRLHowladerN, et al.Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2011, featuring incidence of breast cancer subtypes by race/ethnicity, poverty, and State. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(6):djv048.
3.
JemalMNGeretyPASerlettiJMKovachSJFischerJP. A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis of outcomes following direct-to-implant versus conventional two-stage implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(6):1135-1144.
4.
AlbornozCRCordeiroPGMehraraBJ, et al.Economic implications of recent trends in U.S. immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(3):463-470.
5.
PusicAKanchwalaSK. Improved pocket control in immediate microsurgical breast reconstruction with simultaneous implant placement through the use of mesh. Microsurgery. 2018;38(5):450-457.
6.
PorterME. What is value in health care?N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477-2481.
7.
SearsEDChungKC. Decision analysis in plastic surgery: a primer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(4):1373-1380.
8.
WeinsteinMCStasonWB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(13):716-721.
DetskyASNaglieIG. A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(2):147-154.
11.
HusereauDDrummondMPetrouS, et al.Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BJOG. 2013;120(6):765-770.
12.
CarswellGSafranTAl-HalabiBDavisonPG. Use of decision analysis and economic evaluation in breast reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(4):e2786.
13.
SheckterCCMatrosEMomeniA. Assessing value in breast reconstruction: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2018;71(3):353-365.
14.
CarusoMKGuillotTSNguyenTGreenwayFL. The cost effectiveness of three different measures of breast volume. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2006;30(1):16-20.
15.
Lagares-BorregoAGacto-SanchezPInfante-CossioP, et al.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(2):196-205.
16.
Barrera-PulidoSH. Comparison of costs between implantbased and tram flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(5):916-917.
17.
TaylorAJTateDBrandbergYBlomqvistL. Cost-effectiveness of reduction mammaplasty. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(3):269-273.
18.
Van Den BrueleABJasraBSmothermanCCrandallMSamiianL. Cost-effectiveness of surgeon performed intraoperative specimen ink in breast conservation surgery. J Surg Res. 2018;231:441-447.
19.
de BlacamCMomohAOColakogluS, et al.Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69(5):516-520.
20.
SlavinGEleleTHayranMErmanMKiliçkapS. A decision-analytic model for early stage breast cancer: lumpectomy vs mastectomy. Neoplasma. 2008;55(3):222-228.
21.
RashadRHuberKChatterjeeA. Cost-effectiveness of the biozorb device for radiation planning in oncoplastic surgery. Canc Clin Oncol. 2018;7(2):21-32.
22.
BaliskiCRPatakyRE. Influence of the SSO/ASTRO margin reexcision guidelines on costs associated with breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(3):632-637.
23.
HummelinkSGerritsJGWSchultze KoolLJ, et al.The merits of decision modelling in the earliest stages of the IDEAL framework: an innovative case in DIEP flap breast reconstructions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2017;70(12):1696-1701.
24.
UlrichJBKeeneyGLJakubJWDegnimACBougheyJC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3204-3209.
25.
AraújoCDMVeigaDFHochmanBS, et al.Cost-utility of reduction mammaplasty assessed for the Brazilian public health system. Aesthetic Surg J. 2014;34(8):1198-1204.
26.
AblaVLSmitJMDikmansREG, et al.Short-term cost-effectiveness of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage expander-implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2019;106(5):586-595.
27.
WintersBShermanKABrownP, et al.Cost-effectiveness of the BRECONDA decision aid for women with breast cancer: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Psycho Oncol. 2018;27(6):1589-1596.
28.
ShawJOlsenJAWistEA. Lumpectomy or mastectomy? Is breast conserving surgery too expensive?Breast Canc Res Treat. 1997;45(1):07-14.
29.
AbeSEHillJSHanY, et al.Margin re-excision and local recurrence in invasive breast cancer: A cost analysis using a decision tree model. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(4):443-448.
30.
WalshIXingYAbdel RahmanS, et al.A cost analysis of preoperative breast MRI use for patients with invasive lobular cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(1):23-29.
31.
AllenMKiechleMStollenwerkB, et al.Costs and effects of intra-operative fluorescence molecular imaging - A model-based, early assessment. PloS One. 2018;13(6):e0198137.
32.
JansenLAMacadamSA. The use of AlloDerm in postmastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction: part II. A cost analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(6):2245-2254.
33.
TykkäERäsänenPTukiainenE, et al.Cost-utility of breast reduction surgery - A prospective study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2010;63(1):87-92.
34.
Asko-SeljavaaraNMercerMBachmanK, et al.Cost-effectiveness of 'radioguided occult lesion localization' (ROLL) versus ‘wire-guided localization’ (WGL) in breast conserving surgery for non-palpable breast cancer: Results from a randomized controlled multicentre trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227(1):6-11.
35.
ThomaAKhuthailaDRockwellGVeltriK. Cost-utility analysis comparing free and pedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2003;23(4):287-295.
36.
KrishnanNMPurnellCNahabedianMY, et al.The cost effectiveness of the DIEP flap relative to the muscle-sparing TRAM flap in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(4):948-958.
37.
FreedRCLaJoieASSuttonBS, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy compared to unilateral mastectomy with routine surveillance for unilateral, sporadic breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(13):3903-3910.
38.
KimAHabibiMFrickKD. Cost-effectiveness of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for prevention of contralateral breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(7):2209-2217.
39.
SchrauderMGBrunel-GeuderLHäberleL, et al.Cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing surgeries in preventing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Breast. 2017;32:186-191.
40.
WunderleNMChatterjeeARosenkranzKM, et al.The cost effectiveness of acellular dermal matrix in expander-implant immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2014;67(4):468-476.
41.
PowellARamkumarDBDawliTB, et al.The use of mesh versus primary fascial closure of the abdominal donor site when using a transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(3):682-689.
42.
NigrinyMGIsaranuwatchaiWDeLyzerT, et al.A cost-effectiveness analysis of DIEP vs free MS-TRAM flap for microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Surg Oncol. 2019;119(3):388-396.
43.
ButlerAOffodile IIACAsbanA, et al.Cost-utility analysis comparing oncoplastic breast surgery to standard lumpectomy in large breasted women. Adv Breast Canc Res. 2018;07:187-200.
44.
CzernieckiAVeltriKKhuthailaDRockwellGDukuE. 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(6):1650-1661.
45.
GambleCHavrileskyLJMyersER, et al.Cost effectiveness of risk-reducing mastectomy versus surveillance in BRCA mutation carriers with a history of ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(11):3116-3123.
46.
ChinoEAlbornozCRRazdanSN, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of implants versus autologous perforator flaps using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(4):937-946.
47.
MehraraBAPusicALMcCarthyCM, et al.How should quality-of-life data be incorporated into a cost analysis of breast reconstruction? A consideration of implant versus free TRAM flap procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(4):1075-1082.
48.
VermaNMChatterjeeAVan VlietMM, et al.A comparison of acellular dermal matrix to autologous dermal flaps in single-stage, implant-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):953-961.
49.
PowellAKrishnanNMVan VlietMM, et al.A comparison of free autologous breast reconstruction with and without the use of laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):693e-701e.
50.
PowellACChatterjeeAVallejoS, et al.A cost-utility analysis of the use of preoperative computed tomographic angiography in abdomen-based perforator flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(4):662e-669e.
51.
FisherACSherDChenABRechtAPungliaRS. Cost effectiveness of the oncotype DX DCIS score for guiding treatment of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(33):3963-3968.
52.
SiotosCSarmientoSMcCollM, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of silicone versus saline implant-based breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(2):276e-284e.
53.
SacksAKaurMNTsoiB, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis parallel to a randomized controlled trial comparing vertical scar reduction and inverted T-shaped reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(6):1093-1107.
54.
JohnsonARAsbanAGranoffMD, et al.Is immediate lymphatic reconstruction cost-effective?Ann Surg. 2019; doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000003746. Epub ahead of print.
55.
KrishnanNMFischerJPBastaMNNahabedianMY. Is single-stage prosthetic reconstruction cost effective? A cost-utility analysis for the use of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction relative to expander-implant reconstruction in postmastectomy patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3):537-547.
56.
ChatterjeeAAsbanAJonczykM, et al.A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with free flap reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2019;218(3):597-604.
57.
ChenAHomsyCChenL, et al.A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with single stage implant reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer. Breast. 2018;41:159-164.
58.
FisherRPadulaWVVan VlietMRidgwayEB. Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(5):709e-723e.
59.
FishmanJEPangJHYDabbsDDe La CruzC. Utility and cost effectiveness of routine, histologic evaluation of the mastectomy scar in two-stage, implant-based reconstruction during expander-to-implant exchange. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(6):836e-839e.
60.
NeumannPJStonePWChapmanRHSandbergEABellCM. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(12):964-972.
61.
ParkinDDevlinN. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis?Health Econ. 2006;15(7):653-664.
