Top

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Mastectomy | Methodology

Cost minimization in breast conserving surgery: a comparative study of radiofrequency spectroscopy and full cavity shave margins

Authors: Richard Gilmore, Jennifer Chen, Robert Dembinski, Yannis Reissis, David Milek, Lisa Cadena, Mehran Habibi

Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Background

In an effort to minimize positive margins and subsequent re-excision after breast conserving surgery (BCS), many providers and facilities have implemented either a Full Cavity Shave (FCS) approach or adding the MarginProbe Radiofrequency Spectroscopy System.

Objective

We sought to create a functioning Pro-Forma for use by facilities and payers to evaluate and compare the cost savings of implementing FCS or MarginProbe based on personalized variable inputs.

Methods

A decision tree demonstrating three possible surgical pathways, BCS, BCS + FCS, and BCS + MarginProbe was developed with clinical inputs for re-excision rate, mastectomy as 2nd surgery, rate of reconstruction, and rate of 3rd surgery derived by a literature review. A surgical pathway cost formula was created using the decision tree and financial inputs derived by utilizing the nation’s largest database of privately billed health insurance claims and Medicare claims data (fairhealth.org). Using the surgical pathway formula and financial inputs, a customizable Pro-Forma was created for immediate cost savings analysis of BCS + FCS and BCS + Marginprobe using variable inputs. Costs are from the perspective of third-party payers.

Results

Utilizing MarginProbe to reduce re-excisions for positive margins can be associated with better cost-savings than FCS due to the increased pathology processing costs by using an FCS approach. The reduction in re-excision provided by both FCS and MarginProbe offset their increased expense to various degrees with cost savings of each method improving as baseline re-excisions rates increase, until ultimately each may become cost-neutral or cost-prohibitive when compared to BCS alone. Our data suggest that in the privately insured population, MarginProbe provides a cost-savings over BCS alone when baseline re-excision rates are over 20% and that FCS becomes cost-saving when baseline re-excision rates are over 29%. For Medicare patients, MarginProbe provides a cost-savings when baseline re-excision rates exceed 34%, and FCS becomes cost-saving for re-excision rates over 52%. Our Pro-Forma allows an individual provider or institution to evaluate the cost savings of the FCS approach and/or utilization of the MarginProbe device such that the additional cost or cost-savings of utilizing one or both of these methods can be quickly calculated based on their facility’s volume and baseline re-excision rate.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that utilizing either an FCS approach or the MarginProbe radiofrequency spectroscopy system may be a cost-saving solution to reducing the rate of re-excisions depending on a facility or practice’s surgical volume and baseline re-excision rate. The degree to which each of these interventions provides an added cost or cost-savings to healthcare payers can be evaluated by utilizing the Pro-Forma outlined herein with customizable variable inputs.

Cancer F, Fig. 2023. American Cancer Society. Accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/2023-cancer-facts-figures.html.

Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide Trends in Mastectomy for early-stage breast Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2895.CrossRefPubMed

Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in Mastectomy Rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: Effect of Surgical Year and Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(25):4082–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.19.4225.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

De la Cruz Ku G, Karamchandani M, Chambergo-Michilot D, et al. Does breast-conserving surgery with Radiotherapy have a better survival than mastectomy? A Meta-analysis of more than 1,500,000 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;10(10):6163–88. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-12133-8. /01 2022.CrossRef

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. Int J Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2014;88(3):553–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.11.012.CrossRef

Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, et al. Society of Surgical oncology–american Society for Radiation Oncology–American Society of Clinical Oncology Consensus Guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in Ductal Carcinoma in situ. Practical Radiation Oncology. 2016;6(5):287–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2016.06.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

McEvoy MP, Landercasper J, Naik HR, Feldman S. Update of the american society of breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic. Gland Surg. 2018;7(6):536–53. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2018.11.03.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Keskek M, Kothari M, Ardehali B, Betambeau N, Nasiri N, Gui GP. Factors predisposing to cavity margin positivity following conservation surgery for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol Dec. 2004;30(10):1058–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2004.07.019.CrossRef

Jacobson AF, Asad J, Boolbol SK, Osborne MP, Boachie-Adjei K, Feldman SM. Do additional shaved margins at the time of lumpectomy eliminate the need for re-excision? Am J Surg Oct. 2008;196(4):556–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.06.007.CrossRef

10.

Rizzo M, Iyengar R, Gabram SG, et al. The effects of additional tumor cavity sampling at the time of breast-conserving surgery on final margin status, volume of resection, and pathologist workload. Ann Surg Oncol Jan. 2010;17(1):228–34. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0643-x.CrossRef

11.

Zavagno G, Donà M, Orvieto E, et al. Separate cavity margins excision as a complement to conservative breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol Jul. 2010;36(7):632–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.05.018.CrossRef

12.

Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cavity Shave margins in breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. Aug 2015;6(6):503–10. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1504473.CrossRef

13.

Dupont E, Tsangaris T, Garcia-Cantu C, et al. Resection of Cavity Shave margins in stage 0-III breast Cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery: a prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg May. 2021;1(5):876–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003449.CrossRef

14.

Allweis TM, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of a real-time, intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg Oct. 2008;196(4):483–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.06.024.CrossRef

15.

Schnabel F, Boolbol SK, Gittleman M, et al. A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol May. 2014;21(5):1589–95. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3602-0.CrossRef

16.

Thill M, Dittmer C, Baumann K, Friedrichs K, Blohmer JU. MarginProbe®--final results of the german post-market study in breast conserving surgery of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Feb. 2014;23(1):94–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2013.11.002.CrossRef

17.

Sebastian M, Akbari S, Anglin B, Lin EH, Police AM. The impact of use of an intraoperative margin assessment device on re-excision rates. Springerplus. 2015;4:198. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-0801-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Blohmer JU, Tanko J, Kueper J, Groß J, Völker R, Machleidt A. MarginProbe© reduces the rate of re-excision following breast conserving surgery for breast cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet Aug. 2016;294(2):361–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4011-3.CrossRef

19.

Coble J, Reid V. Achieving clear margins. Directed shaving using MarginProbe, as compared to a full cavity shave approach. Am J Surg Apr. 2017;213(4):627–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.12.019.CrossRef

20.

Kupstas A, Ibrar W, Hayward RD, Ockner D, Wesen C, Falk J. A novel modality for intraoperative margin assessment and its impact on re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery. Am J Surg. Mar 2018;215(3):400–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.11.023.

21.

Geha RC, Taback B, Cadena L, Borden B, Feldman S. A single institution’s randomized double-armed prospective study of lumpectomy margins with adjunctive use of the MarginProbe in nonpalpable breast cancers. Breast J Nov. 2020;26(11):2157–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.14004.CrossRef

22.

Blank MM, Papageorge M, Chen L, Driscoll D, Graham R, Chatterjee A. Hidden Bias in cost-analysis research: what is the prevalence of under-reporting cost perspective in the General Surgical Literature? J Am Coll Surg Dec. 2017;225(6):823–828e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.08.013.CrossRef

23.

Blank MM, Chen L, Papageorge M, Driscoll D, Graham R, Chatterjee A. The underreporting of cost perspective in cost-analysis research: a systematic review of the plastic surgery literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. Mar 2018;71(3):366–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2017.12.008.

24.

Kaczmarski K, Wang P, Gilmore R, et al. Surgeon Re-Excision Rates after breast-conserving surgery: a measure of low-value care. J Am Coll Surg Apr. 2019;228(4):504–512e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.12.043.CrossRef

25.

Chung A, Gangi A, Amersi F, Bose S, Zhang X, Giuliano A. Impact of Consensus Guidelines by the Society of Surgical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology on margins for breast-conserving surgery in stages 1 and 2 invasive breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol Dec. 2015;22(Suppl 3):422–7. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4829-0.CrossRef

26.

Rosenberger LH, Mamtani A, Fuzesi S, et al. Early adoption of the SSO-ASTRO Consensus Guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast Cancer: initial experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3239–46. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5397-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Merrill AL, Tang R, Plichta JK, et al. Should New No Ink on Tumor Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines be Applied to Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? A Retrospective Review using shaved cavity margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3453–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5251-y. /10/01 2016.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Patten CR, Walsh K, Sarantou T, et al. Changes in margin re-excision rates: experience incorporating the no ink on tumor guideline into practice. J Surg Oncol Dec. 2017;116(8):1040–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24770.CrossRef

29.

Schulman AM, Mirrielees JA, Leverson G, Landercasper J, Greenberg C, Wilke LG. Reexcision Surgery for Breast Cancer: An Analysis of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) MasterySM Database Following the SSO-ASTRO “No Ink on Tumor” Guidelines. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2017;24(1):52–58. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5516-5.

30.

Metcalfe LN, Zysk AM, Yemul KS, et al. Beyond the margins—economic costs and complications Associated with repeated breast-conserving surgeries. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(11):1084. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2661.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Bhutiani N, Mercer MK, Bachman KC, et al. Evaluating the Effect of Margin Consensus Guideline publication on operative patterns and financial impact of breast Cancer operation. J Am Coll Surg. Jul 2018;227(1):6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.01.050.

32.

Landercasper J, Borgert AJ, Fayanju OM, et al. Factors Associated with Reoperation in breast-conserving surgery for Cancer: a prospective study of american society of breast surgeon members. Ann Surg Oncol Oct. 2019;26(10):3321–36. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07547-w.CrossRef

33.

Mamtani A, Zabor EC, Rosenberger LH, Stempel M, Gemignani ML, Morrow M. Was Reexcision less frequent for patients with lobular breast Cancer after publication of the SSO-ASTRO Margin Guidelines? Ann Surg Oncol Nov. 2019;26(12):3856–62. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07751-8.CrossRef

34.

Havel L, Naik H, Ramirez L, Morrow M, Landercasper J. Impact of the SSO-ASTRO Margin Guideline on Rates of Re-excision after lumpectomy for breast Cancer: a Meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol May. 2019;26(5):1238–44. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07247-5.CrossRef

35.

Mamtani A, Romanoff A, Baser R, Vincent A, Morrow M, Gemignani ML. Adoption of SSO-ASTRO Margin Guidelines for Ductal Carcinoma in situ: what is the impact on Use of additional surgery? Ann Surg Oncol Jan. 2021;28(1):295–302. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08610-7.CrossRef

36.

Howard-McNatt M, Dupont E, Tsangaris T, et al. Impact of Cavity Shave margins on Margin Status in patients with pure Ductal Carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg Apr. 2021;232(4):373–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.11.019.CrossRef

37.

Wang K, Ren Y, He J. Cavity shaving plus lumpectomy versus lumpectomy alone for patients with breast Cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0168705. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168705.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Hermann N, Haas I, Mlinger P, Koifman Z. Margin assessment before intraoperative radiotherapy during breast conserving surgery—does the addition of MarginProbe decrease the need for addition of fractionated whole breast radiation? Breast J 05/01. 2020;2610.1111/tbj.13865.

39.

Cen C, Chun J, Kaplowitz E, et al. Margin Assessment and Re-excision Rates for Patients who have neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(9):5142–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09524-0.CrossRefPubMed

40.

McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in Reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.43.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol May. 2008;15(5):1297–303. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9777-x.CrossRef

42.

Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. Jama Oct. 2009;14(14):1551–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1450.CrossRef

43.

Cellini C, Hollenbeck ST, Christos P, et al. Factors associated with residual breast cancer after re-excision for close or positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol Oct. 2004;11(10):915–20. https://doi.org/10.1245/aso.2004.12.037.CrossRef

44.

Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, et al. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004–2010. JAMA Surg Dec. 2014;149(12):1296–305. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.926.CrossRef

45.

Sanchez C, Brem RF, McSwain AP, Rapelyea JA, Torrente J, Teal CB. Factors associated with re-excision in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am Surg Mar. 2010;76(3):331–4.CrossRef

46.

Piper ML, Wong J, Fahrner-Scott K, et al. Success rates of re-excision after positive margins for invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2019;5:29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-019-0125-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Valero MG, Mallory MA, Losk K, et al. Surgeon variability and factors Predicting for Reoperation following breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(9):2573–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6526-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Singer L, Brown E, Lanni T. Jr. Margins in breast conserving surgery: the financial cost & potential savings associated with the new margin guidelines. Breast Aug. 2016;28:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.007.CrossRef

49.

Baskin AS, Wang T, Bredbeck BC, Sinco BR, Berlin NL, Dossett LA. Trends in Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy utilization for small unilateral breast Cancer. J Surg Res. 2021;262:71–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.12.057.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Ilonzo N, Tsang A, Tsantes S, Estabrook A, Thu Ma AM. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a ten-year analysis of trends and immediate postoperative outcomes. Breast Apr. 2017;32:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.11.023.CrossRef

51.

Jonczyk MM, Jean J, Graham R, Chatterjee A. Surgical trends in breast cancer: a rise in novel operative treatment options over a 12 year analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat Jan. 2019;173(2):267–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5018-1.CrossRef

52.

2020 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Accessed September 18., 2021, https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2020/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2020.pdf.

53.

Keisler-Starkey K, Bunch L. Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2020. September 2021:P60-274. Current Population Reports. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-274.pdf.

54.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Accessed October 2., 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/policy/polaris/economics/cost-effectiveness/index.html.

55.

Cody HS 3rd, Van Zee KJ. Reexcision–the other breast Cancer Epidemic. N Engl J Med. Aug 2015;6(6):568–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe1507190.

56.

Chagpar AB, Horowitz NR, Killelea BK, et al. Economic impact of routine cavity margins Versus Standard partial mastectomy in breast Cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001799.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Corsi F, Sorrentino L, Bonzini M, et al. Cavity shaving reduces involved margins and reinterventions without increasing costs in breast-conserving surgery: a propensity score-matched study. Ann Surg Oncol Jun. 2017;24(6):1516–24. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5774-x.CrossRef

58.

Cartagena LC, McGuire K, Zot P, Pillappa R, Idowu M, Robila V. Breast-conserving surgeries with and without Cavity shave margins have different re-excision Rates and Associated overall cost: institutional and patient-driven decisions for its utilization. Clin Breast Cancer. 2021;10(5):e594–e601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2021.03.003.CrossRef

Title: Cost minimization in breast conserving surgery: a comparative study of radiofrequency spectroscopy and full cavity shave margins
Authors: Richard Gilmore
Jennifer Chen
Robert Dembinski
Yannis Reissis
David Milek
Lisa Cadena
Mehran Habibi
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Mastectomy
Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1478-7547
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-023-00477-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Cost minimization in breast conserving surgery: a comparative study of radiofrequency spectroscopy and full cavity shave margins

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Economic burden of breast cancer: a case of Southern Iran

Overview of the main methods used for estimating catastrophic health expenditure

Health and economic outcomes of a universal early intervention for parents and children from birth to age five: evaluation of the Salut Programme using a natural experiment

INES: Interactive tool for construction and extrapolation of partitioned survival models

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review appraising the methodological quality

Budget impact analysis of a digital monitoring platform for COPD