Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction Increases Healthcare Utilization and Cost

Judy C Boughey, Stephanie R. Schilz, Holly K. van Houten, Lin Zhu, Elizabeth B Habermann, Valerie Lemaine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in women with unilateral breast cancer continue to rise, especially in women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Methods: We utilized administrative claims data from a large US commercial insurance database (OptumLabs) to identify women age 18–64 years who underwent IBR between January 2004 and December 2013. We compared 2-year unadjusted utilization rates and total costs of care between unilateral mastectomy (UM) and bilateral mastectomy (BM) for implant-based and autologous reconstruction. Comparisons were tested using t-test and differences in cost were estimated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: Overall, 11,235 women undergoing mastectomy with IBR were identified; 7319 with implant reconstruction [1923 UM (26%) and 5396 BM (74%)] and 3916 with autologous reconstruction [1687 UM (43%) and 2229 BM (57%)]. The overall rate of office visits (2386 vs. 2391 per 100 women, p = 0.42) and hospital readmission rate (29.1 per 100 women vs. 27.4, p = 0.06) were similar between BM + IBR and UM + IBR. Women undergoing BM + IBR had a higher emergency room (ER) visit rate (34.1 per 100 women vs. 29.8, p < 0.0001). The total 2-year cost of care was higher for BM + IBR than UM + IBR for implant reconstruction ($106,711 vs. $97,218, p < 0.0001) and for autologous reconstruction ($114,725 vs. $87,874, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: BM + IBR (autologous or implant) was associated with increased ER visits and higher total cost of care over 2 years compared with UM + IBR. Patients considering CPM should be counseled on the additional risks and costs associated with BM + IBR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-8
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of Surgical Oncology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Aug 1 2017

Fingerprint

Mammaplasty
Mastectomy
Health Care Costs
Costs and Cost Analysis
Breast Implants
Prophylactic Mastectomy
Nonparametric Statistics
Hospital Emergency Service
Office Visits
Patient Readmission
Insurance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Oncology

Cite this

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction Increases Healthcare Utilization and Cost. / Boughey, Judy C; Schilz, Stephanie R.; van Houten, Holly K.; Zhu, Lin; Habermann, Elizabeth B; Lemaine, Valerie.

In: Annals of Surgical Oncology, 01.08.2017, p. 1-8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{55fe0fbb752a4cb78137409f1c181d7f,
title = "Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction Increases Healthcare Utilization and Cost",
abstract = "Background: The rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in women with unilateral breast cancer continue to rise, especially in women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Methods: We utilized administrative claims data from a large US commercial insurance database (OptumLabs) to identify women age 18–64 years who underwent IBR between January 2004 and December 2013. We compared 2-year unadjusted utilization rates and total costs of care between unilateral mastectomy (UM) and bilateral mastectomy (BM) for implant-based and autologous reconstruction. Comparisons were tested using t-test and differences in cost were estimated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: Overall, 11,235 women undergoing mastectomy with IBR were identified; 7319 with implant reconstruction [1923 UM (26{\%}) and 5396 BM (74{\%})] and 3916 with autologous reconstruction [1687 UM (43{\%}) and 2229 BM (57{\%})]. The overall rate of office visits (2386 vs. 2391 per 100 women, p = 0.42) and hospital readmission rate (29.1 per 100 women vs. 27.4, p = 0.06) were similar between BM + IBR and UM + IBR. Women undergoing BM + IBR had a higher emergency room (ER) visit rate (34.1 per 100 women vs. 29.8, p < 0.0001). The total 2-year cost of care was higher for BM + IBR than UM + IBR for implant reconstruction ($106,711 vs. $97,218, p < 0.0001) and for autologous reconstruction ($114,725 vs. $87,874, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: BM + IBR (autologous or implant) was associated with increased ER visits and higher total cost of care over 2 years compared with UM + IBR. Patients considering CPM should be counseled on the additional risks and costs associated with BM + IBR.",
author = "Boughey, {Judy C} and Schilz, {Stephanie R.} and {van Houten}, {Holly K.} and Lin Zhu and Habermann, {Elizabeth B} and Valerie Lemaine",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1245/s10434-017-5983-3",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--8",
journal = "Annals of Surgical Oncology",
issn = "1068-9265",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction Increases Healthcare Utilization and Cost

AU - Boughey, Judy C

AU - Schilz, Stephanie R.

AU - van Houten, Holly K.

AU - Zhu, Lin

AU - Habermann, Elizabeth B

AU - Lemaine, Valerie

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Background: The rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in women with unilateral breast cancer continue to rise, especially in women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Methods: We utilized administrative claims data from a large US commercial insurance database (OptumLabs) to identify women age 18–64 years who underwent IBR between January 2004 and December 2013. We compared 2-year unadjusted utilization rates and total costs of care between unilateral mastectomy (UM) and bilateral mastectomy (BM) for implant-based and autologous reconstruction. Comparisons were tested using t-test and differences in cost were estimated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: Overall, 11,235 women undergoing mastectomy with IBR were identified; 7319 with implant reconstruction [1923 UM (26%) and 5396 BM (74%)] and 3916 with autologous reconstruction [1687 UM (43%) and 2229 BM (57%)]. The overall rate of office visits (2386 vs. 2391 per 100 women, p = 0.42) and hospital readmission rate (29.1 per 100 women vs. 27.4, p = 0.06) were similar between BM + IBR and UM + IBR. Women undergoing BM + IBR had a higher emergency room (ER) visit rate (34.1 per 100 women vs. 29.8, p < 0.0001). The total 2-year cost of care was higher for BM + IBR than UM + IBR for implant reconstruction ($106,711 vs. $97,218, p < 0.0001) and for autologous reconstruction ($114,725 vs. $87,874, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: BM + IBR (autologous or implant) was associated with increased ER visits and higher total cost of care over 2 years compared with UM + IBR. Patients considering CPM should be counseled on the additional risks and costs associated with BM + IBR.

AB - Background: The rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in women with unilateral breast cancer continue to rise, especially in women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Methods: We utilized administrative claims data from a large US commercial insurance database (OptumLabs) to identify women age 18–64 years who underwent IBR between January 2004 and December 2013. We compared 2-year unadjusted utilization rates and total costs of care between unilateral mastectomy (UM) and bilateral mastectomy (BM) for implant-based and autologous reconstruction. Comparisons were tested using t-test and differences in cost were estimated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: Overall, 11,235 women undergoing mastectomy with IBR were identified; 7319 with implant reconstruction [1923 UM (26%) and 5396 BM (74%)] and 3916 with autologous reconstruction [1687 UM (43%) and 2229 BM (57%)]. The overall rate of office visits (2386 vs. 2391 per 100 women, p = 0.42) and hospital readmission rate (29.1 per 100 women vs. 27.4, p = 0.06) were similar between BM + IBR and UM + IBR. Women undergoing BM + IBR had a higher emergency room (ER) visit rate (34.1 per 100 women vs. 29.8, p < 0.0001). The total 2-year cost of care was higher for BM + IBR than UM + IBR for implant reconstruction ($106,711 vs. $97,218, p < 0.0001) and for autologous reconstruction ($114,725 vs. $87,874, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: BM + IBR (autologous or implant) was associated with increased ER visits and higher total cost of care over 2 years compared with UM + IBR. Patients considering CPM should be counseled on the additional risks and costs associated with BM + IBR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026516469&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026516469&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1245/s10434-017-5983-3

DO - 10.1245/s10434-017-5983-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 28766231

AN - SCOPUS:85026516469

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Annals of Surgical Oncology

JF - Annals of Surgical Oncology

SN - 1068-9265

ER -