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

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Methodology

Lisa Cadena¹  Richard Gilmore¹  Robert Dembinski¹  Jennifer Chen¹  Yannis Reissis¹  David Milek¹  Mehran Habibi² 

[1] Director, Breast Program at Staten Island University Hospital, Chief of Breast Surgery, Western Region, Northwell Health, 256 Mason Ave., Building B, 2nd Fl., 10305, Staten Island, NY, USA;Director, Breast Program at Staten Island University Hospital, Chief of Breast Surgery, Western Region, Northwell Health, 256 Mason Ave., Building B, 2nd Fl., 10305, Staten Island, NY, USA;Department of Surgery, Northwell Health, Zucker School of Medicine, New York, United States;

关键词: MarginProbe;    Breast-conserving surgery;    Positive margins;    Intraoperative assessment;    Radiofrequency spectroscopy;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12962-023-00477-1

 received in 2023-01-01, accepted in 2023-09-09,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundIn 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.ObjectiveWe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsUtilizing 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

【 图 表 】

41408_2023_919_Article_IEq15.gif

13690_2023_1177_Figc_HTML.png

13690_2023_1177_Figb_HTML.png

13690_2023_1170_Article_IEq120.gif