Cost-effectiveness analysis of whole-mount pathology processing for patients with early breast cancer undergoing breast conservation.

BACKGROUND Obtaining accurate histopathologic detail for breast lumpectomy specimens is challenging because of sampling and loss of three-dimensional conformational features with conventional processing. The whole-mount (wm) technique is a novel method of serial pathologic sectioning designed to optimize cross-sectional visualization of resected specimens and determination of margin status. METHODS Using a Markov chain cohort simulation cost-effectiveness model, we compared conventional processing with wm technique for breast lumpectomies. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the perspective of the Canadian health care system and compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (icers) for cost per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) over a 10-year time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model with willingness-to-pay (wtp) thresholds of $0-$100,000. Costs are reported in adjusted 2014 Canadian dollars, discounted at a rate of 3%. RESULTS Compared with conventional processing, wm processing is more costly ($19,989 vs. $18,427) but generates 0.03 more qalys over 10 years. The icer is $45,414, indicating that this additional amount is required for each additional qaly obtained. The model was robust to all variance in parameters, with the prevalence of positive margins accounting for most of the model's variability. CONCLUSIONS After a wtp threshold of $45,414, wm processing becomes cost-effective and ultimately generates fewer recurrences and marginally more qalys over time. Excellent baseline outcomes for the current treatment of breast cancer mean that incremental differences in survival are small. However, the overall benefit of the wm technique should be considered in the context of achieving improved accuracy and not just enhancements in clinical effectiveness.

[1]  M. Yaffe,et al.  Whole‐mount pathology of breast lumpectomy specimens improves detection of tumour margins and focality , 2016, Histopathology.

[2]  M. Yaffe,et al.  Tumor shrinkage associated with whole-mount histopathologic techniques in oral tongue carcinoma. , 2015, Pathology, research and practice.

[3]  C. Earle,et al.  Health system costs for stage-specific breast cancer: a population-based approach. , 2014, Current oncology.

[4]  T. Bramley,et al.  Willingness to pay to avoid metastatic breast cancer treatment side effects: results from a conjoint analysis , 2014, SpringerPlus.

[5]  T. To,et al.  Twenty-Five–Year Follow-up for Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: Randomized Screening Trial , 2014 .

[6]  T. To,et al.  Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Seema A Khan,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. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  P. Macaskill,et al.  The Association of Surgical Margins and Local Recurrence in Women with Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer Treated with Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Meta-Analysis , 2014, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[9]  Kela Liu,et al.  A novel, automated technology for multiplex biomarker imaging and application to breast cancer , 2014, Histopathology.

[10]  M. J. Yaffe,et al.  3D Pathology Volumetric Technique: A Method for Calculating Breast Tumour Volume from Whole-Mount Serial Section Images , 2012, International journal of breast cancer.

[11]  S. Peacock,et al.  Assessing the real-world cost-effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab in HER-2/neu positive breast cancer. , 2012, The oncologist.

[12]  H. Feigelson,et al.  Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. , 2012, JAMA.

[13]  J. Landercasper,et al.  Variability in Reexcision Following Breast Conservation Surgery: McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al (Michigan State Univ, Grand Rapids; Univ of Vermont, Burlington; Group Health Res Inst, Seattle, WA; et al) JAMA 307:467-475, 2012§ , 2012 .

[14]  B. Luce,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Cancer Prevention , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[15]  S. J. Whitehead,et al.  Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. , 2010, British medical bulletin.

[16]  S. Bae,et al.  International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? , 2010, Health economics.

[17]  Dan Wang,et al.  An improved processing method for breast whole-mount serial sections for three-dimensional histopathology imaging. , 2009, American journal of clinical pathology.

[18]  F. Fitzal Consensus conference on breast conservation. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[19]  Angela Mariotto,et al.  Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  M. Rezai,et al.  Breast-Conserving Treatment of Breast Cancer – Oncological and Reconstructive Aspects , 2008, Gynäkologisch-geburtshilfliche Rundschau.

[21]  Gina M Clarke,et al.  Spatial resolution requirements for acquisition of the virtual screening slide for digital whole-specimen breast histopathology. , 2007, Human pathology.

[22]  L. Newman,et al.  Complications in breast surgery. , 2007, Surgical Clinics of North America.

[23]  M J Yaffe,et al.  Whole‐specimen histopathology: a method to produce whole‐mount breast serial sections for 3‐D digital histopathology imaging , 2007, Histopathology.

[24]  M. Rossing,et al.  Hormone receptor status, tumor characteristics, and prognosis: a prospective cohort of breast cancer patients , 2007, Breast Cancer Research.

[25]  R. Mansel,et al.  Consensus conference on breast conservation. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[26]  Elisabeth Fenwick,et al.  Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation , 2006, BMC Health Services Research.

[27]  W. Dooley,et al.  Understanding the mechanisms creating false positive lumpectomy margins. , 2005, American journal of surgery.

[28]  F. Vicini,et al.  Factors associated with ipsilateral breast failure and distant metastases in patients with invasive breast carcinoma treated with breast-conserving therapy. A clinicopathologic study of 607 neoplasms from 583 patients. , 2003, American journal of clinical pathology.

[29]  James K. Hammitt,et al.  Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of Mortality Risk , 2003 .

[30]  Peter A Ubel,et al.  What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[31]  L. Layfield,et al.  Utility of Four‐Quadrant Random Sections in Mastectomy Specimens , 2003, The breast journal.

[32]  H. Safaii,et al.  The pancake phenomenon contributes to the inaccuracy of margin assessment in patients with breast cancer. , 2002, American journal of surgery.

[33]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. , 2001, Health economics.

[34]  P J Neumann,et al.  Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[35]  Tammy O. Tengs,et al.  One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. , 2000, Medical care.

[36]  C. Bell,et al.  Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence. , 2000, Health affairs.

[37]  E. Wiley,et al.  Diagnostic discrepancies in breast specimens subjected to gross reexamination. , 1999, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[38]  Geoff Delaney M.B.B.S.,et al.  Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ - A meta-analysis , 1999 .

[39]  J. Boyages,et al.  Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. , 1999, Cancer.

[40]  John Mullahy,et al.  Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 1998 .

[41]  E. P. Dellinger,et al.  Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and wound infection following breast surgery. , 1993, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[42]  A S Detsky,et al.  How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. , 1992, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[43]  W. McGuire,et al.  Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. , 1987, Science.