Cost-benefit analysis of biopsy methods for suspicious mammographic lesions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Hypothesis: Stereotactic core biopsy (SCB) is more cost-effective than needle-localized biopsy (NLB) for evaluation and treatment of mammographic lesions. Design: A computer-generated mathematical model was developed based on clinical outcome modeling to estimate costs accrued during evaluation and treatment of suspicious mammographic lesions. Total costs were determined for evaluation and subsequent treatment of cancer when either SCB or NLB was used as the initial biopsy method. Cost was estimated by the cumulative work relative value units accrued. The risk of malignancy based on the Breast Imaging Reporting Data System (BIRADS) score and mammographic suspicion of ductal carcinoma in situ were varied to simulate common clinical scenarios. Main Outcome Measures: Total cost accumulated during evaluation and subsequent surgical therapy (if required). Results: Evaluation of BIRADS 5 lesions (highly suggestive, risk of malignancy = 90%) resulted in equivalent relative value units for both techniques (SCB, 15.54; NLB, 15.47). Evaluation of lesions highly suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ yielded similar total treatment relative value units (SCB, 11.49; NLB, 10.17). Only for evaluation of BIRADS 4 lesions (suspicious abnormality, risk of malignancy = 34%) was SCB more cost-effective than NLB (SCB, 7.65 vs NLB, 15.66). Conclusions: No difference in cost-benefit was found when lesions highly suggestive of malignancy (BIRADS 5) or those suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ were evaluated initially with SCB vs NLB, thereby disproving the hypothesis. Only for intermediate-risk lesions (BIRADS 4) did initial evaluation with SCB yield a greater cost savings than with NLB.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)990-995
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Surgery
Volume136
Issue number9
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Needle Biopsy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Biopsy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Neoplasms
Stereotaxic Techniques
Therapeutics
Cost Savings
Information Systems
Breast
Theoretical Models
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Cost-benefit analysis of biopsy methods for suspicious mammographic lesions. / Fahy, B. N.; Bold, Richard J; Schneider, Philip D; Khatri, V.; Goodnight Jr, James E.

In: Archives of Surgery, Vol. 136, No. 9, 2001, p. 990-995.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{edba480bf43746dd85ed9ec217873005,
title = "Cost-benefit analysis of biopsy methods for suspicious mammographic lesions",
abstract = "Hypothesis: Stereotactic core biopsy (SCB) is more cost-effective than needle-localized biopsy (NLB) for evaluation and treatment of mammographic lesions. Design: A computer-generated mathematical model was developed based on clinical outcome modeling to estimate costs accrued during evaluation and treatment of suspicious mammographic lesions. Total costs were determined for evaluation and subsequent treatment of cancer when either SCB or NLB was used as the initial biopsy method. Cost was estimated by the cumulative work relative value units accrued. The risk of malignancy based on the Breast Imaging Reporting Data System (BIRADS) score and mammographic suspicion of ductal carcinoma in situ were varied to simulate common clinical scenarios. Main Outcome Measures: Total cost accumulated during evaluation and subsequent surgical therapy (if required). Results: Evaluation of BIRADS 5 lesions (highly suggestive, risk of malignancy = 90{\%}) resulted in equivalent relative value units for both techniques (SCB, 15.54; NLB, 15.47). Evaluation of lesions highly suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ yielded similar total treatment relative value units (SCB, 11.49; NLB, 10.17). Only for evaluation of BIRADS 4 lesions (suspicious abnormality, risk of malignancy = 34{\%}) was SCB more cost-effective than NLB (SCB, 7.65 vs NLB, 15.66). Conclusions: No difference in cost-benefit was found when lesions highly suggestive of malignancy (BIRADS 5) or those suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ were evaluated initially with SCB vs NLB, thereby disproving the hypothesis. Only for intermediate-risk lesions (BIRADS 4) did initial evaluation with SCB yield a greater cost savings than with NLB.",
author = "Fahy, {B. N.} and Bold, {Richard J} and Schneider, {Philip D} and V. Khatri and {Goodnight Jr}, {James E}",
year = "2001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "136",
pages = "990--995",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-benefit analysis of biopsy methods for suspicious mammographic lesions

AU - Fahy, B. N.

AU - Bold, Richard J

AU - Schneider, Philip D

AU - Khatri, V.

AU - Goodnight Jr, James E

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Hypothesis: Stereotactic core biopsy (SCB) is more cost-effective than needle-localized biopsy (NLB) for evaluation and treatment of mammographic lesions. Design: A computer-generated mathematical model was developed based on clinical outcome modeling to estimate costs accrued during evaluation and treatment of suspicious mammographic lesions. Total costs were determined for evaluation and subsequent treatment of cancer when either SCB or NLB was used as the initial biopsy method. Cost was estimated by the cumulative work relative value units accrued. The risk of malignancy based on the Breast Imaging Reporting Data System (BIRADS) score and mammographic suspicion of ductal carcinoma in situ were varied to simulate common clinical scenarios. Main Outcome Measures: Total cost accumulated during evaluation and subsequent surgical therapy (if required). Results: Evaluation of BIRADS 5 lesions (highly suggestive, risk of malignancy = 90%) resulted in equivalent relative value units for both techniques (SCB, 15.54; NLB, 15.47). Evaluation of lesions highly suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ yielded similar total treatment relative value units (SCB, 11.49; NLB, 10.17). Only for evaluation of BIRADS 4 lesions (suspicious abnormality, risk of malignancy = 34%) was SCB more cost-effective than NLB (SCB, 7.65 vs NLB, 15.66). Conclusions: No difference in cost-benefit was found when lesions highly suggestive of malignancy (BIRADS 5) or those suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ were evaluated initially with SCB vs NLB, thereby disproving the hypothesis. Only for intermediate-risk lesions (BIRADS 4) did initial evaluation with SCB yield a greater cost savings than with NLB.

AB - Hypothesis: Stereotactic core biopsy (SCB) is more cost-effective than needle-localized biopsy (NLB) for evaluation and treatment of mammographic lesions. Design: A computer-generated mathematical model was developed based on clinical outcome modeling to estimate costs accrued during evaluation and treatment of suspicious mammographic lesions. Total costs were determined for evaluation and subsequent treatment of cancer when either SCB or NLB was used as the initial biopsy method. Cost was estimated by the cumulative work relative value units accrued. The risk of malignancy based on the Breast Imaging Reporting Data System (BIRADS) score and mammographic suspicion of ductal carcinoma in situ were varied to simulate common clinical scenarios. Main Outcome Measures: Total cost accumulated during evaluation and subsequent surgical therapy (if required). Results: Evaluation of BIRADS 5 lesions (highly suggestive, risk of malignancy = 90%) resulted in equivalent relative value units for both techniques (SCB, 15.54; NLB, 15.47). Evaluation of lesions highly suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ yielded similar total treatment relative value units (SCB, 11.49; NLB, 10.17). Only for evaluation of BIRADS 4 lesions (suspicious abnormality, risk of malignancy = 34%) was SCB more cost-effective than NLB (SCB, 7.65 vs NLB, 15.66). Conclusions: No difference in cost-benefit was found when lesions highly suggestive of malignancy (BIRADS 5) or those suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ were evaluated initially with SCB vs NLB, thereby disproving the hypothesis. Only for intermediate-risk lesions (BIRADS 4) did initial evaluation with SCB yield a greater cost savings than with NLB.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034769563&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034769563&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11529819

AN - SCOPUS:0034769563

VL - 136

SP - 990

EP - 995

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 9

ER -