Changes in and predictors of length of stay in hospital after surgery for breast cancer between 1997/98 and 2004/05 in two regions of England: a population-based

BACKGROUND Decreases in length of stay (LOS) in hospital after breast cancer surgery can be partly attributed to the change to less radical surgery, but many other factors are operating at the patient, surgeon and hospital levels. This study aimed to describe the changes in and predictors of length of stay (LOS) in hospital after surgery for breast cancer between 1997/98 and 2004/05 in two regions of England. METHODS Cases of female invasive breast cancer diagnosed in two English cancer registry regions were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data for the period 1st April 1997 to 31st March 2005. A subset of records where women underwent mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS) was extracted (n = 44,877). Variations in LOS over the study period were investigated. A multilevel model with patients clustered within surgical teams and NHS Trusts was used to examine associations between LOS and a range of factors. RESULTS Over the study period the proportion of women having a mastectomy reduced from 58% to 52%. The proportion varied from 14% to 80% according to NHS Trust. LOS decreased by 21% from 1997/98 to 2004/05 (LOSratio = 0.79, 95%CI 0.77-0.80). BCS was associated with 33% shorter hospital stays compared to mastectomy (LOSratio = 0.67, 95%CI 0.66-0.68). Older age, advanced disease, presence of comorbidities, lymph node excision and reconstructive surgery were associated with increased LOS. Significant variation remained amongst Trusts and surgical teams. CONCLUSION The number of days spent in hospital after breast cancer surgery has continued to decline for several decades. The change from mastectomy to BCS accounts for only 9% of the overall decrease in LOS. Other explanations include the adoption of new techniques and practices, such as sentinel lymph node biopsy and early discharge. This study has identified wide variation in practice with substantial cost implications for the NHS. Further work is required to explain this variation

Radiological staging in breast cancer: which asymptomatic patients to image and how.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 4% of patients diagnosed with early breast cancer have occult metastases at presentation. Current national and international guidelines lack consensus on whom to image and how. METHODS: We assessed practice in baseline radiological staging against local guidelines for asymptomatic newly diagnosed breast cancer patients presenting to the Cambridge Breast Unit over a 9-year period. RESULTS: A total of 2612 patients were eligible for analysis; 91.7% were appropriately investigated. However in the subset of lymph node negative stage II patients, only 269 out of 354 (76.0%) investigations were appropriate. No patients with stage 0 or I disease had metastases; only two patients (0.3%) with stage II and or =4 positive lymph nodes), III and IV disease, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results prompted us to propose new local guidelines for staging asymptomatic breast cancer patients: only clinical stage III or IV patients require baseline investigation. The high specificity and convenience of computed tomography (chest, abdomen and pelvis) led us to recommend this as the investigation of choice in breast cancer patients requiring radiological staging

Does Immediate Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy affect the Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy?

Purpose: The frequency of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is increasing, and the types of reconstruction used are diverse. Adjuvant chemotherapy is a life-saving intervention in selected high-risk breast cancer patients. The aim of our study was to determine how IBR and type of reconstruction affect the timing of the initiation of chemotherapy. Methods: We obtained data from female breast cancer patients treated by mastectomy with IBR (IBR group) and without IBR (mastectomy only group) who received adjuvant chemotherapy between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2010. We retrospectively collected data including patient characteristics, disease characteristics, treatment details, and treatment outcomes from our institutional electronic patient database and medical treatment records. The reconstruction types were categorized as deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, latissimus dorsi (LD) flap and tissue expander/implant (TEI). Results

Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study

BACKGROUND: Single reading with computer aided detection (CAD) is an alternative to double reading for detecting cancer in screening mammograms. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of a single reader with CAD is more cost-effective than double reading. METHODS: Based on data from the CADET II study, the cost-effectiveness of single reading with CAD versus double reading was measured in terms of cost per cancer detected. Cost (Pound (£), year 2007/08) of single reading with CAD versus double reading was estimated assuming a health and social service perspective and a 7 year time horizon. As the equipment cost varies according to the unit size a separate analysis was conducted for high, average and low volume screening units. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the reading time, equipment and assessment cost, recall rate and reader qualification. RESULTS: CAD is cost increasing for all sizes of screening unit. The introduction of CAD is cost-increasing compared to double reading because the cost of CAD equipment, staff training and the higher assessment cost associated with CAD are greater than the saving in reading costs. The introduction of single reading with CAD, in place of double reading, would produce an additional cost of £227 and £253 per 1,000 women screened in high and average volume units respectively. In low volume screening units, the high cost of purchasing the equipment will results in an additional cost of £590 per 1,000 women screened.One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the factors having the greatest effect on the cost-effectiveness of CAD with single reading compared with double reading were the reading time and the reader's professional qualification (radiologist versus advanced practitioner). CONCLUSIONS: Without improvements in CAD effectiveness (e.g. a decrease in the recall rate) CAD is unlikely to be a cost effective alternative to double reading for mammography screening in UK. This study provides updated estimates of CAD costs in a full-field digital system and assessment cost for women who are re-called after initial screening. However, the model is highly sensitive to various parameters e.g. reading time, reader qualification, and equipment cost