Influence of the SSO/ASTRO Margin Reexcision Guidelines on Costs Associated with Breast-Conserving Surgery
- 369 Downloads
The reported reexcision rates vary significantly for patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). This variability is a function of both the positive pathologic margin rate and the interpretation of an adequate pathologic margin. The influence of the SSO/ASTRO margin guidelines on reexcision rates and the potential cost savings is of interest from both quality and health economics perspectives.
A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing BCS during a 3-year period (January 1, 2010–December 31, 2012) was performed. The reexcision rate and the pathologic margin status were assessed to determine the number of patients with pathologic negative margins who underwent reexcision. A decision analysis using previously published case costing information was used to determine the potential savings associated with avoidance of reoperation for patients meeting guidelines criteria.
The analysis included 512 patients who underwent attempted BCS for invasive breast cancer. Reoperations occurred for 25% (126/512) of the BCS cohort, but this rate could potentially be decreased to 16% (44/512) if these guidelines were applied. Based on our cost model, application of the guidelines would provide a potential cost savings of $698 (95% confidence interval $523–$893) per patient undergoing attempted BCS in our population.
Adherence to the SSO-ASTRO guidelines could prevent one-third of reoperations among patients undergoing BCS. This would result in significant cost savings to the health care system while avoiding unnecessary operations. Use of guidelines has the potential to improve the quality of care provided to patients.
KeywordsInvasive Breast Cancer British Columbia Negative Margin Potential Cost Saving Case Cost
The authors thank Ms. Lauren Hughes, Student Intern-PREDICT at the BC Cancer Agency’s Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, for her statistical support. Funding for her work has been provided through the BC Cancer Foundation. The Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control is Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (Grant #2015-703549).
- 7.DeSnyder SM, Hunt KK, Smith BD, Moran MS, Klimberg S, Lucci A. Assessment of practice patterns following publication of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3250–6. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4666-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Morrow M. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:717–30. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3480-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of surgical oncology–American society for radiation oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1507–15. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.3935.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Patten CR. Changes in margin re-excision rates: a single-institution study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:49.Google Scholar
- 12.Pink GH, Bolley HB. Physicians in health care management: 3. Case mix groups and resource intensity weights: an overview for physicians. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 1994;150:889–94.Google Scholar
- 13.Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 326-0021: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Annual, Health Care. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, 2013.Google Scholar
- 19.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Breast Cancer Surgery in Canada, 2007–2008 to 2009–2010. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CIHI; 2012. p. 47. Retrieved 30 August 2015 at https://secure.cihi.ca/estore/productbrowse.htm.
- 21.Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, et al. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: the American society of breast surgeons consensus conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3174–83. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4759-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.McCahill LE, Privette A, James T, et al. Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg. 2009;144:455–62; discussion 462–3. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.56.
- 31.The 6 Domains of Health Care Quality. Retrieved 27 March 2016 at https://cahps.ahrq.gov/consumer-reporting/talkingquality/create/sixdomains.html.