Cost of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy |
| |
Authors: | Ashish A. Deshmukh MPH Scott B. Cantor PhD Melissa A. Crosby MD Wenli Dong MS Yu Shen PhD Isabelle Bedrosian MD Susan K. Peterson MPH PhD Patricia A. Parker PhD Abenaa M. Brewster MD MHS |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Department of Health Services Research – Unit 1444, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 4. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 5. Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 6. Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
|
| |
Abstract: | Purpose To compare the healthcare costs of women with unilateral breast cancer who underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) with those of women who did not. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 904 women treated for stage I–III breast cancer with or without CPM. Women were matched according to age, year at diagnosis, stage, and receipt of chemotherapy. We included healthcare costs starting from the date of surgery to 24 months. We identified whether care was immediate or delayed (CPM within 6 months or 6–24 months after initial surgery, respectively). Costs were converted to approximate Medicare reimbursement values and adjusted for inflation. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of CPM on total breast cancer care costs adjusting for patient characteristics and accounting for matched pairs. Results The mean difference between the CPM and no-CPM matched groups was $3,573 (standard error [SE] $455) for professional costs, $4,176 (SE $1,724) for technical costs, and $7,749 (SE $2,069) for total costs. For immediate and delayed CPM, the mean difference for total costs was $6,528 (SE $2,243) and $16,744 (SE $5,017), respectively. In multivariable analysis, the CPM group had a statistically significant increase of 16.9 % in mean total costs compared with the no-CPM group (p < 0.0001). Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu-positive status, receipt of radiation, and reconstruction were associated with increases in total costs. Conclusions CPM significantly increases short-term healthcare costs for women with unilateral breast cancer. These patient-level cost results can be used for future studies that evaluate the influence of costs of CPM on decision making. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|