3.9 Article

Economic Implications of Widespread Expansion of Frozen Section Margin Analysis to Guide Surgical Resection in Women With Breast Cancer Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery

Journal

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages E413-E422

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2015.005652

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose In the current health care environment, cost effectiveness is critically important in policy setting and care of patients. This study performed a health economic analysis to assess the implications to providers and payers of expanding the use of frozen section margin analysis to minimize reoperations for patients undergoing breast cancer lumpectomy. Methods A health care economic impact model was built to assess annual costs associated with breast lumpectomy procedures with and without frozen section margin analysis to avoid reoperation. Results If frozen section margin analysis is used in 20% of breast lumpectomies and under a baseline assumption that 35% of initial lumpectomies without frozen section analysis result in reoperations, the potential annual cost savings are $18.2 million to payers and $0.4 million to providers. Under the same baseline assumption, if 100% of all health care facilities adopted the use of frozen section margin analysis for breast lumpectomy procedures, the potential annual cost savings are $90.9 million to payers and $1.8 million to providers. On the basis of 10,000 simulations, use of intraoperative frozen section margin analysis yields cost saving for payers and is cost neutral to slightly cost saving for providers. Conclusion This economic analysis indicates that widespread use of frozen section margin evaluation intraoperatively to guide surgical resection in breast lumpectomy cases and minimize reoperations would be beneficial to cost savings not only for the patient but also for payers and, in most cases, for providers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available