A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with single stage implant reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer

Asban, Ammar; Homsy, Christopher; Chen, Lilian; Fisher, Carla S.; Losken, Albert; Chatterjee, Abhishek

doi:10.1016/j.breast.2018.07.012

Cited by 40 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, it is associated with lower complication rates, better symmetry, better quality of life and better satisfaction, particularly in cases in which radiotherapy was necessary. 20,21 The complication rates with GCM were low, comparable to the rates found with other conventional techniques of oncoplastic mammaplasty. 7,20 Despite major differences in the follow-up of cases, the oncologic outcome appears to be comparable to results reported from other series of oncoplastic surgeries.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…Oncoplastic surgery is cost‐effective. Moreover, it is associated with lower complication rates, better symmetry, better quality of life and better satisfaction, particularly in cases in which radiotherapy was necessary 20,21 . The complication rates with GCM were low, comparable to the rates found with other conventional techniques of oncoplastic mammaplasty 7,20 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oncoplastic mammaplasty with geometric compensation: Evolution of the technique, outcomes and follow‐up in a multicentre retrospective cohort

Paulinelli

Oliveira²,

Bagnoli³

et al. 2020

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives To report on the outcomes and evolution of an oncoplastic mammaplasty referred to as geometric compensation mammaplasty. Methods Seventy‐three patients with malignant tumours were operated on and followed up in five centres in two countries. Preoperative markings were performed using a Wise pattern. The resection of affected skin was geometrically compensated using another area of preserved skin. Results Mean pathological tumour size was 30.42 ± 21.98 mm. Twenty tumours (30.77%) were locally advanced and 15 (20.55%) were multicentric. Twenty‐two patients (34.38%) were submitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cosmetic results were considered good or excellent in 59 cases (80.82%). Margins were positive in two cases (2.74%). Complications were partial wound dehiscence (n = 11; 15.07%), fat necrosis (n = 9; 12.33%), skin necrosis (n = 5; 6.85%), seromas (n = 5; 6.85%), enlarged scars (n = 7; 9.59%) and infection (n = 2; 2.74%). There were three cases of local recurrence (4.29%), two of bone metastasis (2.86%) and three of metachronous contralateral breast cancer (4.35%). No deaths were recorded within a mean follow‐up of 35.33 ± 28.21 months. Conclusions The technique allowed breast conservation in situations requiring a large resection of skin in difficult positions, with a high rate of free margins, correction of ptosis, satisfactory symmetry and few complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Oncoplastic mammaplasty with geometric compensation: Evolution of the technique, outcomes and follow‐up in a multicentre retrospective cohort

Paulinelli

Oliveira²,

Bagnoli³

et al. 2020

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the rise of reconstructive surgery, aesthetic satisfaction has become an important factor influencing patient decision making when considering surgical treatment choices for breast cancer removal [22]. Although both M+R and OS inherently represent reconstructive techniques, OS has higher patient satisfaction [19, 20] and has also been shown to be cost-effective [23, 24]. Collectively, these fundamental principles may influence a patient’s decision for breast reconstruction, and thereby explain the trends seen in our present analysis [6, 12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical trends in breast cancer: a rise in novel operative treatment options over a 12 year analysis

Jonczyk

Jean

Graham

et al. 2018

Breast Cancer Res Treat

Self Cite

147

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Breast cancer surgical techniques are evolving. Few studies have analyzed national trends for the multitude of surgical options that include partial mastectomy (PM), mastectomy without reconstruction (M), mastectomy with reconstruction (M+R), and PM with oncoplastic reconstruction (OS). We hypothesize that the use of M is declining and likely correlates with the rise of surgery with reconstructive options (M+R, OS). Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2016 and ICD codes for IBC and DCIS. Patients were then grouped together based on current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for PM, M, M+R, and OS. In each group, categories were sorted again based on additional reconstructive procedures. Data analysis was conducted via Pearson’s chi-squared test for demographics, linear regression, and a non-parametric Mann-Kendall test to assess a temporal trend. Results The patient cohort consisted of 256,398 patients from the NSQIP data base; 197,387 meet inclusion criteria diagnosed with IBC or DCIS. Annual breast surgery trends changed as follows: PM 46.3–46.1% (p = 0.21), M 35.8–26.4% (p = 0.001), M+R 15.9–23.0% (p = 0.03), and OS 1.8–4.42% (p = 0.001). Analyzing the patient cohort who underwent breast conservation, categorical analysis showed a decreased use of PM alone (96–91%) with an increased use of OS (4–9%). For the patient cohort undergoing mastectomy, M alone decreased (69–53%); M+R with muscular flap decreased (9–2%); and M+R with implant placement increased (20–40%)—all three trends p < 0.0001. Conclusion The modern era of breast surgery is identified by the increasing use of reconstruction for patients undergoing breast conservation (in the form of OS) and mastectomy (in the form of M+R). Our study provides data showing significant trends that will impact the future of both breast cancer surgery and breast training programs.

show abstract

“…Single‐centre case series have suggested that, overall, patients undergoing TM may report better quality of life than those undergoing mastectomy and IBR. There is emerging evidence to suggest that TM may be a cost‐effective alternative to mastectomy and immediate implant‐based and free‐flap reconstruction in a North American setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction

Potter

Trickey

Rattay

et al. 2020

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR. Methods:The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy.Results: A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21⋅0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37⋅2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35⋅6 per cent; P < 0⋅001). Breast conservation was possible in 87⋅0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment.Conclusion: TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety. * Members of the iBRA-2 and TeaM Steering Groups, the Breast Reconstruction Research Collaborative, and the Mammary Fold Academic and Research Collaborative are co-authors of this study and are listed in Appendix S1 (supporting information) Earlier versions of the combined analysis were presented to the

show abstract

A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with single stage implant reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer

Cited by 40 publications

References 27 publications

Oncoplastic mammaplasty with geometric compensation: Evolution of the technique, outcomes and follow‐up in a multicentre retrospective cohort

Oncoplastic mammaplasty with geometric compensation: Evolution of the technique, outcomes and follow‐up in a multicentre retrospective cohort

Surgical trends in breast cancer: a rise in novel operative treatment options over a 12 year analysis

Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About