ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2026
Budget Impact Analysis of Vacuum-Assisted Excision Versus Surgical Excision for the Assessment of Breast Lesions of Uncertain Malignant Potential in Italy.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveB3 breast lesions, of uncertain malignant potential, pose diagnostic challenges owing to their intermediate malignancy risk. While surgical excision (SE) is traditionally used for definitive diagnosis, vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) offers a less invasive alternative. As diagnostic practices evolve, this study assesses the financial impact of adopting VAE for B3 lesion management from the hospital perspective within the Italian healthcare system. MATERIALS AND
methodsA budget impact analysis (BIA) was conducted from the hospital perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Clinical complication rates for SE and VAE were derived through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. A micro-costing approach was used to estimate direct medical costs on the basis of detailed resource utilization data collected via structured questionnaires administered across five Italian hospitals. One-way sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results.
resultsVAE was associated with significantly lower costs than SE, mainly owing to reduced hospitalization, operating room use, and personnel time. The average per-patient cost was €820 for VAE versus €1663 for SE, yielding savings of €843. Over 5 years, with VAE adoption rising from 20% to 80%, cumulative hospital savings were estimated to be between €11.1 million and €13.7 million. These findings were further confirmed by multiple budget impact scenario analyses, which consistently demonstrated a favorable economic profile for VAE across all tested assumptions.
conclusionsIn our analysis, VAE represented a cost-saving, minimally invasive alternative to SE for the management of B3 breast lesions from the hospital perspective in Italy. Its adoption can enhance hospital efficiency and support more sustainable resource allocation within the Italian healthcare system.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.