Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35904654›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2022

Economic Impact of Reducing Reexcision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health System.

Jeffery M Chakedis, Annie Tang, Alison Savitz, Liisa L Lyon, Patricia E Palacios, Brooke Vuong, Maihgan A Kavanagh, Gillian E Kuehner, Sharon B Chang, Permanente Medical Group Breast Research Collaborative

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffery M ChakedisDepartment of General Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), Oakland, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5737-9643
Annie TangDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, East Highland Hospital, Oakland, CA, USA.
Alison SavitzDepartment of General Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), Oakland, CA, USA.
Liisa L LyonKaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, CA, USA.
Patricia E PalaciosEnterprise Business Services, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Oakland, CA, USA.
Brooke VuongDepartment of General Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), Oakland, CA, USA.
Maihgan A KavanaghDepartment of General Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), Oakland, CA, USA.
Gillian E KuehnerDepartment of General Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), Oakland, CA, USA.
Sharon B ChangDepartment of General Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), Oakland, CA, USA. Sharon.B.Chang@kp.org.
Permanente Medical Group Breast Research Collaborative
Compass Manufacturing Services (United States) · USKaiser Foundation Hospital · USKaiser Permanente · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReexcision after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is costly for patients, but few studies have captured the economic burden to a healthcare system. We quantified operating room (OR) charges as well as OR time and then modeled expected savings of a reexcision reduction initiative.

methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort review of all breast cancer patients with BCS between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Operating room charges of disposable supplies and implants as well as operative time were calculated.

resultsDuring the 5-year period, the 8804 patients who underwent BCS, 1628 (18.5%) required reexcision. The reexcision cohort was younger (61 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (23.7% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), and had larger tumors (T1+T2 73.2% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.001). Reexcision costs represented 39% of total costs, the cost per patient for surgery was fourfold higher for reexcision patients. Reexcision operations comprised 14% of total operating room (OR) time (1848 of 13,030 hours). The reexcision rate for 54 surgeons varied from 7.2-39.0% with 46% (n = 25) having a reexcision rate >20%. A model simulating reducing reexcision rates to 20% or below for all surgeons reduced the reexcision rate to 16.2% overall. Using per procedure data, the model predicted a decrease in reexcision operations by 18% (327 operations), OR costs by 14% ($287,534), and OR time by 11% (204 hours).

conclusionsReexcision after BCS represents 39% of direct OR costs and 14% of OR time in our healthcare system. Modest improvements in surgeon reexcision rates may lead to significant economic and OR time savings.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedFemaleHumansMastectomy, SegmentalReoperationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35904654
OpenAlexW4288712587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.