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

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

Radiopathological features predictive of involved margins in ductal carcinoma in situ

INTRODUCTIONDuctal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) usually manifests as microcalcification on mammography but may be uncalcified. Consequently, a quarter of patients undergoing excision of a presumed pure DCIS require further surgery to re-excise margins. Patients at highest risk of margin involvement may benefit from additional preoperative assessment.METHODSA retrospective review was carried out of patients treated for screen detected, biopsy proven DCIS in a single centre over a ten-year period (1999–2009). Logistic regression analysis identified factors predictive of need for further surgery to clear margins.RESULTSOverall, 248 patients underwent surgery for DCIS (low/intermediate grade: 82, high grade: 155) and 49 (19.8%) required further surgery. High grade disease was associated with greater mammographic extent (mean: 32mm [range: 5–120mm] vs 25mm [range: 2–100mm]), p=0.009) and higher incidence of mastectomy (38% vs 24%, p=0.034). Factors predictive of involvement of surgical margins necessitating further surgery included negative oestrogen receptor status (OR: 5.2, 95% CI: 2.1–12.8, p&lt;0.001) and mammographic extent (odds ratio [OR]: 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2–2.1, p=0.004). Once size exceeded 30mm, more than 50% of patients required secondary breast surgery for margins.CONCLUSIONSReoperation rates for DCIS increase with preoperative size on mammography and negative oestrogen receptor status on core biopsy. Patients with these risk features should be counselled accordingly and consideration should be given to the role of additional preoperative imaging.</p

Multicentre prospective observational study evaluating recommendations for mastectomy by multidisciplinary teams

Background Recommendations for mastectomy by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) may contribute to variation in mastectomy rates. The primary aim of this multicentre prospective observational study was to describe current practice in MDT decision‐making for recommending mastectomy. A secondary aim was to determine factors contributing to variation in mastectomy rates. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing mastectomy between 1 June 2015 and 29 February 2016 at participating units across the UK were recruited. Details of neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST), operative and oncological data, and rationale for recommending mastectomy by MDTs were collected. Results Overall, 1776 women with breast cancer underwent 1823 mastectomies at 68 units. Mastectomy was advised by MDTs for 1402 (76·9 per cent) of these lesions. The most common reasons for advising mastectomy were large tumour to breast size ratio (530 women, 29·1 per cent) and multicentric disease (372, 20·4 per cent). In total, 202 postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor‐positive (ER+) unifocal tumours were advised mastectomy and not offered NST, owing to large tumour to breast size ratio in 173 women (85·6 per cent). Seventy‐five women aged less than 70 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐positive (HER2+) tumours were advised mastectomy and not offered NST, owing to large tumour to breast size ratio in 45 women (60 per cent). Conclusion Most mastectomies are advised for large tumour to breast size ratio, but there is an inconsistency in the use of NST to downsize tumours in patients with large ER+ or HER2+ cancers. The application of standardized recommendations for NST could reduce the number of mastectomies advised by MDTs

The INTRABEAM® Photon Radiotherapy System for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: initial treatment for early breast cancer is usually either breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy. After BCS, whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (WB-EBRT) is the standard of care. A potential alternative to post-operative WB-EBRT is intraoperative radiation therapy delivered by the INTRABEAM® Photon Radiotherapy System (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) to the tissue adjacent to the resection cavity at the time of surgery.Objective: to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer during surgical removal of the tumour.Data sources: electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to March 2014 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and the manufacturer’s submission were also searched. The advisory group was contacted to identify additional evidence.Methods: systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were conducted. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to full texts of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, and differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. Clinical effectiveness studies were included if they were carried out in patients with early operable breast cancer. The intervention was the INTRABEAM system, which was compared with WB-EBRT, and study designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Controlled clinical trials could be considered if data from available RCTs were incomplete (e.g. absence of data on outcomes of interest). A cost–utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM compared with WB-EBRT for early operable breast cancer.Results: one non-inferiority RCT, TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A), met the inclusion criteria for the review. The review found that local recurrence was slightly higher following INTRABEAM than WB-EBRT, but the difference did not exceed the 2.5% non-inferiority margin providing INTRABEAM was given at the same time as BCS. Overall survival was similar with both treatments. Statistically significant differences in complications were found for the occurrence of wound seroma requiring more than three aspirations (more frequent in the INTRABEAM group) and for a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity score of grade 3 or 4 (less frequent in the INTRABEAM group). Cost-effectiveness base-case analysis indicates that INTRABEAM is less expensive but also less effective than WB-EBRT because it is associated with lower total costs but fewer total quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, sensitivity analyses identified four model parameters that can cause a switch in the treatment option that is considered cost-effective.Limitations: the base-case result from the model is subject to uncertainty because the disease progression parameters are largely drawn from the single available RCT. The RCT median follow-up of 2 years 5 months may be inadequate, particularly as the number of participants with local recurrence is low. The model is particularly sensitive to this parameter.Conclusions and implications: a significant investment in INTRABEAM equipment and staff training (clinical and non-clinical) would be required to make this technology available across the NHS. Longer-term follow-up data from the TARGIT-A trial and analysis of registry data are required as results are currently based on a small number of events and economic modelling results are uncertai