Search

Objectives: The objective is to develop a pragmatic framework, based on value-based healthcare principles, to monitor health outcomes per unit costs on an institutional level. Subsequently, we investigated the association between health outcomes and healthcare utilisation costs., Design: This is a retrospective cohort study., Setting: A teaching hospital in Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Participants: The study was performed in two use cases. The bariatric population contained 856 patients of which 639 were diagnosed with morbid obesity body mass index (BMI) <45 and 217 were diagnosed with morbid obesity BMI ≥45. The breast cancer population contained 663 patients of which 455 received a lumpectomy and 208 a mastectomy., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The quality cost indicator (QCI) was the primary measures and was defined asQCI = (resulting outcome * 100)/average total costs (per thousand Euros)where average total costs entail all healthcare utilisation costs with regard to the treatment of the primary diagnosis and follow-up care. Resulting outcome is the number of patients achieving textbook outcome (passing all health outcome indicators) divided by the total number of patients included in the care path., Results: The breast cancer and bariatric population had the highest resulting outcome values in 2020 Q4, 0.93 and 0.73, respectively. The average total costs of the bariatric population remained stable (avg, €8833.55, min €8494.32, max €9164.26). The breast cancer population showed higher variance in costs (avg, €12 735.31 min €12 188.83, max €13 695.58). QCI values of both populations showed similar variance (0.3 and 0.8). Failing health outcome indicators was significantly related to higher hospital-based costs of care in both populations (p <0.01)., Conclusions: The QCI framework is effective for monitoring changes in average total costs and relevant health outcomes on an institutional level. Health outcomes are associated with hospital-based costs of care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Intraoperative specimen radiography is a routinely used procedure to ensure adequate resection of non-palpable breast tumors. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography (IDSM) is an alternative to conventional specimen radiography (CSR) which provides immediate specimen evaluation and can potentially decrease operation time. IDSM may also result in lower positive margin and re-excision rates. IDSM was implemented in our hospital in 2018. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of using IDSM versus CSR on operation time, margin status and re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery., Methods: The present study is a single-center retrospective cohort study with 2 patient cohorts: one which underwent CSR (n = 532) and one which underwent IDSM (n = 475). The primary outcome was the operation time. Secondary outcomes were the margin status of the primary surgery, the cavity shaving rate, and the re-excision rate. Differences between cohorts were compared using univariate statistics and multiple regression analyses to adjust for variables that were significantly different between the groups., Results: IDSM use was associated with an 8-minute reduction in surgery time (B = -8.034, 95% CI [-11.6, -4.5]; P < .001). Treatment variables independently associated with the operation time included use of IDSM, type of surgery, and performance of cavity shaving. Cavity shaves were more often performed when IDSM was used (24% for IDSM vs. 14% for CSR, P < .001), while the proportion of negative margin rates (93% for IDSM vs. 96% for CSR, P = .070) was comparable., Conclusion: IDSM was associated with a modest reduction in operation time. Surgeons performed more cavity shaves since the introduction of IDSM, but this increase was not reflected by difference in negative margin rates., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Previous studies have shown that vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) is a safe and effective alternative for surgical excision (SE) of benign breast lesions. However, the use of VAE in high-risk lesions is controversial and guidelines are ambiguous. This study describes the impact of the implementation of VAE in terms of management and outcomes compared to a cohort before implementation., Methods: A single centre retrospective study with two cohorts: 'before' and 'after' implementation of VAE was performed. All patients with a benign or high-risk lesion treated by VAE or SE between 2016 and 2019 were included. Excision, complication, and upgrade rates were compared between both cohorts. Cox regression was used for the evaluation of recurrences and re-excisions., Results: The overall excision rate of all benign and high-risk lesions was comparable in both cohorts (17% vs 16%, p = 0.700). After implementation, benign lesions were significantly more often managed by VAE (101/151, 67%, p < 0.001). Re-excision, recurrence, and complication rates were low and comparable between cohorts (4.3% vs 3.9%, p > 0.999; 3.0 vs 2.0%, p = 0.683; 3.4 vs 6.6%, p = 0.289, respectively)., Conclusion: SE could safely be replaced by VAE in 58% of patients treated for a benign or high-risk lesion. With this shift in management, the use of operating rooms and general anaesthesia can safely be omitted in this patient group. Further research on high-risk lesions is warranted since our data are exploratory., Advances in Knowledge: This study provides supportive data for the use of VAE as a management option for both benign (up to 5 cm) and high-risk lesions. Outcomes on re-excision, recurrence should be confirmed in prospective studies especially in high-risk lesions.

Women with early-stage breast cancer have an excellent prognosis with current therapy, but could presumably be treated less invasively, without the need for surgery. The primary goal of this meta-analysis was to examine whether thermal ablation is an effective method to treat early-stage breast cancer. Studies reporting on complete ablation rate after thermal ablation as a treatment of small breast cancers (≤ 2 cm) were included. Methodologic quality of included studies was assessed using MINORS criteria. Complete ablation rates are given as proportions, and meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed. The overall complete ablation rate in 1266 patients was 86% and was highest after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (92%). Local recurrence rates varied from 0% to 3%, with a median follow-up of 15 to 61 months. Overall, complication rates were low (5%-18% across techniques) and were highest after high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation and lowest after cryoablation. Cosmetic outcome was good to excellent in at least 85% of patients but was reported infrequently and long-term results of cosmetic outcome after thermal ablation and radiotherapy are still lacking. Thermal ablation techniques treating early-stage breast cancer (≤ 2 cm) are safe and effective based on complete ablation rate and short-term local recurrence rates. Especially, RFA, microwave ablation, and cryoablation are promising techniques as an alternative to surgical resection without jeopardizing current treatment effectiveness or safety. Owing to great heterogeneity in the included studies, a formal recommendation on the best technique is not possible. These findings warrant the design of large randomized controlled trials comparing thermal ablation and breast-conserving surgery in the treatment of T1 breast cancer., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy worldwide but almost half of the patients have an excellent prognosis with a 5-year survival rate of 98%-99%. These patients could potentially be treated with thermal ablation to avoid surgical excision, reduce treatment-related morbidity and increase patients' quality of life without jeopardising treatment effectiveness. Previous studies showed highest complete ablation rates for radiofrequency, microwave and cryoablation. However, due to heterogeneity among studies, it is unknown which of these three techniques should be selected for a phase 3 comparative study., Methods and Analysis: The aim of this phase 2 screening trial is to determine the efficacy rate of radiofrequency, microwave and cryoablation with the intention to select one treatment for further testing in a phase 3 trial. Additionally, exploratory data are obtained for the phase 3 trial. The design is a multicentre open-label randomised phase 2 screening trial. Patients with unifocal, invasive breast cancer with a maximum diameter of 2 cm without lymph node or distant metastases are included. Triple negative, Bloom-Richardson grade 3 tumours and patients with an indication for neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be excluded. Included patients will be allocated to receive one of the three thermal ablation techniques. Three months later surgical excision will be performed to determine the efficacy of thermal ablation. Treatment efficacy in terms of complete ablation rate will be assessed with CK 8/18 and H&E staining. Secondary outcomes include feasibility of the techniques in an outpatient setting, accuracy of MRI for complete ablation, patient satisfaction, adverse events, side effects, cosmetic outcome, system usability and immune response., Ethics and Dissemination: This study protocol was approved by Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NL9205 (www.trialregister.nl); Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Wire-guided localization (WGL) is the standard of care in the surgical treatment of nonpalpable breast tumors. In this study, we compare the use of a new magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) technique to WGL in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer patients. Open-label, single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing MaMaLoc (intervention) to WGL (control) in women with early-stage breast cancer. Primary outcome was surgical usability measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS, 0-100 score). Secondary outcomes were patient reported, clinical, and pathological outcomes such as retrieval rate, operative time, resected specimen weight, margin status, and reoperation rate. Thirty-two patients were analyzed in the MaMaLoc group and 35 in the WGL group. Patient and tumor characteristics were comparable between groups. No in situ complications occurred. Retrieval rate was 100% in both groups. Surgical usability was higher for MaMaLoc: 70.2 ± 8.9 vs. 58.1 ± 9.1, p < 0.001. Patients reported higher overall satisfaction with MaMaLoc (median score 5/5) versus WGL (score 4/5), p < 0.001. The use of magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) for early-stage breast cancer is effective and has higher surgical usability than standard WGL., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: Better cosmetic outcome after vacuum assisted excision (VAE) compared to surgical excision of benign breast lesions is suggested in previous studies but has never been evaluated with validated outcome measures. In this study, patient reported cosmetic outcome after VAE was evaluated., Methods: Patients who underwent VAE between July 2017 and December 2018 were invited to complete the cosmetic subscale of the Dutch Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale, comparing the treated with the untreated breast. Response mode ranged from 1 (no difference) to 4 (large difference) and cosmetic outcome was calculated as the unweighted mean. Clinical outcomes included: tumor size, number of cores, complications, residual lesions and recurrences., Results: Response rate was 73.4% (47 of 64 patients). Median tumor size was 15 mm (range 5-51 mm) and median number of cores 6.5 (range 1-85), complete excision was confirmed in all but two patients. Mean cosmetic outcome was good (mean score ≤1.75) in 74% of patients and no patients reported a poor cosmetic outcome (mean score >3.25). A hematoma occurred in five patients (one needed aspiration) and a skin rash in one patient, no patients developed an infection or seroma., Conclusion: In this study VAE is safe and effective for tumors up to 5 cm and patient reported cosmetic outcome was good. Patients with benign lesions could benefit from VAE as an alternative for surgical excision., Advances in Knowledge: A formal quantitative measurement of cosmetic outcome after vacuum assisted excision for benign breast lesions was still lacking. This study shows that this cosmetic outcome is overall good in benign lesions up to 5 cm.

Purpose: Accelerated partial breast irradiation is a treatment option for selected patients with early-stage breast cancer. Some accelerated partial breast irradiation techniques lead to skin toxicity with the skin dose as a main risk factor. Biodegradable spacers are effective and safe in prostate brachytherapy to protect the rectum. We hypothesize that a subcutaneous spacer injection reduces the skin dose in breast brachytherapy., Methods and Materials: Ultrasound-guided spacer injections, either hyaluronic acid (HA) or iodined polyethylene glycol (PEG), were performed on fresh mastectomy specimens. Success was defined as a spacer thickness of ≥5 mm in the high-dose skin area. Usability was scored using the system usability scale. Pre and postinjection CT scans were used to generate low-dose-rate seed brachytherapy treatment plans after defining a clinical target volume. Maximum dose to small skin volumes (D 0.2cc ) and existence of hotspots (isodose ≥90% on 1 cm 2 of skin) were calculated as skin toxicity indicators., Results: We collected 22 mastectomy specimens; half had HA and half had PEG injection. Intervention success was 100% for HA and 90.9% for PEG (p = NS). Hydrodissection was feasible in 81.8% with HA and 63.6% with PEG. Median system usability scale score was 97.5 for HA and 82.5 for PEG (p < 0.001). Mean D 0.2cc was 80.8 Gy without spacer and 53.7 Gy with spacer (p < 0.001). Skin hotspots were present in 40.9% without spacer but none with spacer (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: A spacer injection in mastectomy specimens is feasible. An extra 5 mm space is always achieved, thereby potentially reducing the skin dose dramatically in low-dose-rate seed breast brachytherapy., (Copyright © 2018 American Brachytherapy Society. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: During oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (BCS), the surgical cavity is closed to reduce seroma formation. This makes the radiotherapy target definition using clips challenging, leading to poor inter-observer agreement and potentially geographical misses. We hypothesize that injecting a radiopaque hydrogel in the lumpectomy cavity before closure improves radiotherapy target definition and agreement between observers., Materials and Methods: Women undergoing BCS in a single university hospital were prospectively accrued in the study. Three to 9 ml of iodined PolyEthylene Glycol (PEG) hydrogel and clips were inserted in the lumpectomy cavity. A CT-scan was performed at 4 to 6 weeks. CT images of BCS patients with standard clips only were used as control group, matched on age, specimen weight, and distance between clips. Six radiation oncologists delineated the tumor bed volumes and rated the cavity visualization scores (CVS). The primary endpoint was the agreement between observers measured using a Conformity Index (Cx)., Results: Forty-two patients were included, 21 hydrogel procedures and 21 controls, resulting in 315 observer pairs. The feasibility of the intervention was 100%. The median Cx was higher in the intervention group (Cx = 0.70, IQR [0.54-0.79]) than in the control group (Cx = 0.54, IQR [0.42-0.66]), p < 0.00, as were the CVS (3.5 [2.5-4.5] versus 2.5 [2-3.5], p < 0.001). The rate of surgical site infections was similar to literature., Conclusions: The use of radiopaque PEG enables to identify the lumpectomy cavity, resulting in a high inter-observer agreement for radiotherapy target definition. This intervention is easy to perform and blend well into current practice., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is a treatment option for selected early stage breast cancer patients. Some APBI techniques lead to skin toxicity with the skin dose as main risk factor. We hypothesize that a spacer injected between the skin and target volume reduces the skin dose and subsequent toxicity in permanent breast seed implant (PBSI) patients., Methods: In this parallel-group, single-center, randomized controlled trial, the effect of a subcutaneous spacer injection on skin toxicity among patients treated with PBSI is tested. Eligibility for participation is derived from international guidelines for suitable patients for partial breast radiotherapy, e.g. women aged ≥ 50 years with a histologically proven non-lobular breast carcinoma and/or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), tumor size ≤ 3 cm, node-negative, and PBSI technically feasible. Among exclusion criteria are neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion, and allergy for hyaluronic acid. For the patients allocated to receive spacer, after the PBSI procedure, 4-10 cc of biodegradable hyaluronic acid (Barrigel™, Palette Life Sciences, Santa Barbara, CA, USA or Restylane SubQ®, Galderma Benelux, Breda, the Netherlands) is injected directly under the skin using ultrasound guidance to create an extra 0.5-1 cm space between the treatment volume and the skin. The primary outcome is the rate of telangiectasia at two years, blindly assessed using Bentzen's 4-point scale. Secondary outcomes include: local recurrence; disease-free and overall survival rates; adverse events (pain, redness, skin/subcutaneous induration, radiation dermatitis, pigmentation, surgical site infection); skin dose; cosmetic and functional results; and health-related quality of life. A Fisher's exact test will be used to test differences between groups on the primary outcome. Previous studies found 22.4% telangiectasia at two years. We expect the use of a spacer could reduce the occurrence of telangiectasia to 7.7%. A sample size of 230 patients will allow for a 10% lost to follow-up rate., Discussion: In this study, the effect of a subcutaneous spacer injection on the skin dose, late skin toxicity, and cosmetic outcome is tested in patients treated with PBSI in the setting of breast-conserving therapy. Our results will be relevant for most forms of breast brachytherapy as well as robotic radiosurgery, as skin spacers could protect the skin with these other techniques., Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR6549 . Registered on 27 June 2017.

Background: The incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) after breast cancer surgery is relatively high; ranging from 3 to 19%. The role of wound dressings in the prevention of SSI after breast cancer surgery is unclear. This study compares a silver carboxymethylcellulose dressing (AQUACEL Ag Surgical (Aquacel) with standard wound dressing in SSI rate after breast cancer surgery., Patients and Methods: A single-centre randomized controlled trial among women ≥18 years, diagnosed with breast cancer, undergoing breast conserving or ablative surgery, was conducted in a combined in and outpatient setting. The intervention was the use of Aquacel, compared with standard gauze dressing. Primary outcome measure was SSI following CDC criteria., Results: A total of 230 patients were analysed: 106 in the Aquacel group and 124 controls. Seven patients (6.6%) developed SSI in the Aquacel group and 16 patients (12.9%) in the control group (RR 0.51 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.22-1.20]; p = 0.112; adjusted OR 0.49 [0.19-1.25] p = 0.135)). Unplanned exploratory subgroup analysis of breast conserving surgery patients showed that SSI rate was 1/56 (1.8%) in the Aquacel group vs. 7/65 (10.8%) in controls; adjusted OR 0.15 [0.02-1.31] p = 0.087. The Aquacel group showed better patient satisfaction (median 8 vs. 7 on a Numerical Rating Scale, p = 0.006), fewer dressing changes within 48 hours(adjusted OR 0.12 [0.05-0.27] p<0.001), fewer re-operations (0% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.062), and lower mean wound-related treatment costs, both in a high (€265.42 (SD = 908) vs. €470.65 (SD = 1223) [p<0.001]) and low (€59.12 (SD = 129) vs. €67.55 (SD = 172) [p<0.001]) attributable costs of SSI model., Conclusion: In this randomized controlled trial in women undergoing surgery for breast cancer, the use of AQUACEL Ag Surgical wound dressing did not significantly reduce the occurrence of SSIs compared to standard gauze dressing. The use of Aquacel resulted in significantly improved patient satisfaction, reduced dressing changes and reduced wound-related costs., Trial Registration: www.trialregister.nl: NTR5840., Competing Interests: TK received research materials from Convatec, no financial funding. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. None of the authors served or currently serve on the editorial board of PLOS ONE. None of the authors acted as an expert witness in relevant legal proceedings. None of the authors have sat or currently sit on a committee for an organization that may benefit from publication of the paper.

This paper demonstrates that the introduction of large-core needle biopsy (LCNB) replacing needle-localised breast biopsy (NLBB) for nonpalpable (screen-detected) breast lesions could result in substantial cost savings at the expense of a possible slight increase in breast cancer mortality. The cost-effectiveness of LCNB and NLBB was estimated using a microsimulation model. The sensitivity of LCNB (0.97) and resource use and costs of LCNB and NLBB were derived from a multicentre consecutive cohort study among 973 women who consented in getting LCNB and NLBB, if LCNB was negative. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Replacing NLBB with LCNB would result in approximately six more breast cancer deaths per year (in a target population of 2.1 million women), or in 1000 extra life-years lost from breast cancer (effect over 100 years). The total costs of management of breast cancer (3% discounted) are estimated at pound 4676 million with NLBB; introducing LCNB would save pound 13 million. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of continued NLBB vs LCNB would be pound 12 482 per additional life-year gained (3% discounted); incremental costs range from pound -21 687 (low threshold for breast biopsy) to pound 74 378 (high sensitivity of LCNB).