Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 1190–1201 | Cite as

A Systematic Review of Utility Score Assessments in the Breast Surgery Cost-Analysis Literature

  • Alexander Y. YoonEmail author
  • Laura Bozzuto
  • Andrew J. Seto
  • Carla S. Fisher
  • Abhishek Chatterjee
Health Services Research and Global Oncology



Surgery for breast cancer can have significant impact on patient quality-of-life. Cost-utility analysis provides a way to analyze the economic impact of a surgical procedure with the change in a patient’s quality of life. Utility scores are used in these analyses to quantify the impact on quality of life. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on breast cancer surgical procedures to compile a repository of utility scores and to assess gaps in the current literature.


Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed for studies reporting utility scores for breast surgery and breast reconstruction. The health states and utility scores were extracted and grouped into seven procedural categories based on oncologic and reconstructive methods. Mean utility score and ranges were calculated and reported for each procedural category.


Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria assessing 118 health states. Most utility scores were obtained from healthcare professionals. Breast-conserving therapy yielded the highest mean utility score at 0.79, whereas mastectomy yielded a mean utility score of 0.75. Among reconstruction health states, implant reconstruction had a lower score than autologous reconstruction (0.64 implant vs. latissimus dorsi 0.69 and TRAM/DIEP 0.71). No utility scores were found associated with oncoplasty or nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures.


A reliable body of utility scores is important in enabling future cost-utility and value-based analysis comparisons for breast surgical oncology. Additional work is needed to obtain health state assessments from the patient perspective, as well as assessment of more modern surgical and reconstructive approaches.



No conflicts of interest and no commercial interests by any of the authors involved in the article.


  1. 1.
    Group USCSW. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2014 incidence and mortality web-based report. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2017.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE, et al. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1422–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunn LB, Cooper BA, Neuhaus J, et al. Identification of distinct depressive symptom trajectories in women following surgery for breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2011;30:683–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gold M, Dunn LB, Phoenix B, et al. Co-occurrence of anxiety and depressive symptoms following breast cancer surgery and its impact on quality of life. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016;20:97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dean C, Chetty U, Forrest AP. Effects of immediate breast reconstruction on psychosocial morbidity after mastectomy. Lancet. 1983;1:459–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Howes BH, Watson DI, Xu C, et al. Quality of life following total mastectomy with and without reconstruction versus breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: a case-controlled cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1184–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilkins EG, Cederna PS, Lowery JC, et al. Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: one-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:1014–25. (discussion 1026–7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dean NR, Crittenden T. A five-year experience of measuring clinical effectiveness in a breast reconstruction service using the BREAST-Q patient reported outcomes measure: a cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1469–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yabroff KR, Lund J, Kepka D, Mariotto A. Economic burden of cancer in the United States: estimates, projections, and future research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:2006–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Offodile AC, 2nd, Chatterjee A, Vallejo S, 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;135:662e–9e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chatterjee A, Krishnan NM, Van Vliet MM, et al. A comparison of free autologous breast reconstruction with and without the use of laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:693e–701e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krishnan NM, Chatterjee A, Rosenkranz KM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of acellular dermal matrix in expander-implant immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67:468–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krishnan NM, Chatterjee A, Van Vliet MM, et al. A comparison of acellular dermal matrix to autologous dermal flaps in single-stage, implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:953–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robinson R. Cost-utility analysis. BMJ. 1993;307:859–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blank MM, Chen L, Papageorge M, et al. The underreporting of cost perspective in cost-analysis research: a systematic review of the plastic surgery literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:366–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blank MM, Papageorge M, Chen L, et al. Hidden bias in cost-analysis research: what is the prevalence of under-reporting cost perspective in the general surgical literature? J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225:823–828.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rocchi A, Menon D, Verma S, Miller E. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond. Value Health. 2008;11:771–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lopert R, Viney R. Revolution then evolution: the advance of health economic evaluation in Australia. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108:360–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buxton MJ. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cappelli M, Surh L, Humphreys L, et al. Measuring women’s preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:595–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chatterjee A, Ramkumar DB, Dawli TB, 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: a cost-utility analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:682–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gold MR, Franks P, McCoy KI, Fryback DG. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values. Med Care. 1998;36:778–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grover R, Padula WV, Van Vliet M, Ridgway EB. Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:709e–23e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, Richardson J. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Soc Sci Med. 1992;34:993–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Koning HJ, van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int J Cancer. 1991;49:531–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim SH, Jo MW, Lee JW, et al. Validity and reliability of EQ-5D-3L for breast cancer patients in Korea. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim SH, Jo MW, Ock M, et al. Estimation of health state utilities in breast cancer. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:531–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knuttel FM, van den Bosch MA, Young-Afat DA, et al. Patient preferences for minimally invasive and open locoregional treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Value Health. 2017;20:474–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liljegren G, Karlsson G, Bergh J, Holmberg L. The cost-effectiveness of routine postoperative radiotherapy after sector resection and axillary dissection for breast cancer stage I. Results from a randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 1997;8:757–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mansel R, Locker G, Fallowfield L, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole vs tamoxifen in adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer in the United Kingdom: the 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (‘Arimidex’, Tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:152–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Norum J, Olsen JA, Wist EA. Lumpectomy or mastectomy? Is breast conserving surgery too expensive? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997;45:7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prescott RJ, Kunkler IH, Williams LJ, et al. A randomised controlled trial of postoperative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimum-risk older population. The PRIME trial. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1-149, 3–4.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sinno H, Izadpanah A, Thibaudeau S, et al. An objective assessment of the perceived quality of life of living with bilateral mastectomy defect. Breast. 2013;22:168–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thoma A, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, Veltri K. Cost-utility analysis comparing free and pedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2003;23:287–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thoma A, Veltri K, Khuthaila D, et al. 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;113:1650–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, et al. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3302–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Doyle S, Lloyd A, Walker M. Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2008;62:374–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jeong K, Cairns J. Systematic review of health state utility values for economic evaluation of colorectal cancer. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6:36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Noel CW, Lee DJ, Kong Q, et al. Comparison of health state utility measures in patients with head and neck cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;141:696–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jewell EL, Smrtka M, Broadwater G, et al. Utility scores and treatment preferences for clinical early-stage cervical cancer. Value Health. 2011;14:582–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Lorenzi F, Loschi P, Bagnardi V, et al. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for tumors larger than 2 centimeters: is it oncologically safe? A matched-cohort analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:1852–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowan KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:907–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhong T, McCarthy C, Min S, et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction: a prospective analysis of early postoperative outcomes. Cancer. 2012;118:1701–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T, et al. Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1585–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:503–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Razdan SN, Cordeiro PG, Albornoz CR, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast reconstruction options in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:510e–7e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Y. Yoon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura Bozzuto
    • 2
  • Andrew J. Seto
    • 1
  • Carla S. Fisher
    • 3
  • Abhishek Chatterjee
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Tufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryTufts Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations