This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Patient‐level costs in margin re‐excision for breast‐conserving surgery. BJS 2019; 106: 384-394.
Published: 19th December 2018
Authors: Y. Grant, R. Al‐Khudairi, E. St John, M. Barschkett, D. Cunningham, R. Al‐Mufti et al.
Background
High rates of reoperation following breast‐conserving surgery (BCS) for positive margins are associated with costs to healthcare providers. The aim was to assess the quality of evidence on reported re‐excision costs and compare the direct patient‐level costs between patients undergoing successful BCS versus reoperations after BCS.
Method
The study used data from women who had BCS with or without reoperation at a single institution between April 2015 and March 2016. A systematic review of health economic analysis in BCS was conducted and scored using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Financial data were retrieved using the Patient‐Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS) for patients. Exchange rates used were: US $1 = £0·75, £1 = €1·14 and US $1 = €0·85.
Results
The median QHES score was 47 (i.q.r. 32·5–79). Only two of nine studies scored in the upper QHES quartile (score at least 75). Costs of initial lumpectomy and reoperation were in the range US $1234–11786 and $655–9136 respectively. Over a 12‐month interval, 153 patients had definitive BCS and 59 patients underwent reoperation. The median cost of reoperations after BCS (59 patients) was £4511 (range 1752–18 019), representing an additional £2136 per patient compared with BCS without reoperation (P < 0·001).
Conclusion
The systematic review demonstrated variation in methodological approach to cost estimates and a paucity of high‐quality cost estimate studies for reoperations. Extrapolating local PLICS data to a national level suggests that getting BCS right first time could result in substantial savings.
Full textYou may also be interested in
Original article
Authors: K. B. I. M. Keymeulen, S. M. E. Geurts, M. B. I. Lobbes, E. M. Heuts, L. E. M. Duijm, L. F. S. Kooreman et al.
Original article
Authors: E. Heeg, J. X. Harmeling, B. E. Becherer, P. J. Marang‐van de Mheen, M. T. F. D. Vrancken Peeters, M. A. M. Mureau et al.
Original article
Authors: M. B. Nava, J. R. Benson, W. Audretsch, P. Blondeel, G. Catanuto, M. W. Clemens et al.
Original article
Authors: I. G. M. Poodt, G. Vugts, R. J. Schipper, R. M. H. Roumen, H. J. T. Rutten, A. J. G. Maaskant‐Braat et al.
Notes: No impact
Original article
Authors: A. Karakatsanis, A.‐F. Hersi, L. Pistiolis, R. Olofsson Bagge, P. M. Lykoudis, S. Eriksson et al.
Original article
Authors: V. L. Negenborn, J. M. Smit, R. E. G. Dikmans, H. A. H. Winters, J. W. R. Twisk, P. Q. Ruhé et al.
Original article
Authors: A. Lindegren, I. Schultz, I. Sinha, L. Cheung, A. A. Khan, M. Tekle et al.
Notes: Effects on fibrosis after radiotherapy
Original article
Authors: F. Magnoni, G. Massari, G. Santomauro, V. Bagnardi, E. Pagan, G. Peruzzotti et al.
Systematic review
Authors: S. R. Tee, L. A. Devane, D. Evoy, J. Rothwell, J. Geraghty, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: In selected patients using dual tracer
Original article
Authors: A. A. Khan, I. Hernan, J. A. Adamthwaite, K. W. D. Ramsey
Notes: Effective in selected patients
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: G. Gui, A. Agusti, D. Twelves, S. Tang, M. Kabir, C. Montgomery et al.
Notes: Identifies causative lesion
Original article
Authors: C. Dahlbäck, A. Ringberg, J. Manjer
Notes: Better methods needed