Comparing the Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Abdominal-based Autogenous Tissue and Tissue-Expander Implant: A Feasibility Study

Achilles Thoma, Ronen Avram, Arianna Dal Cin, Jessica Murphy, Eric Duku, Feng Xie, Achilles Thoma, Ronen Avram, Arianna Dal Cin, Jessica Murphy, Eric Duku, Feng Xie

Abstract

Background: To determine the superiority of autologous abdominal tissue (AAT) or tissue-expander implant (TE/I) reconstruction, a robust comparative cohort study is required. This study sought to determine the feasibility of a future large pragmatic cohort study comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of AAT and TE/I at 12 months postoperative.

Methods: Potential participants were screened during consultation with their surgeon. Three health-related quality-of-life scales, the Health Utility Index Mark 3, the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, and the BREAST-Q were used preoperatively, 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Direct medical costs and postoperative patient/caregiver productivity loss were collected using patient diaries. Feasibility was assessed through patient recruitment rates and compliance of patients and study staff to complete required study documentation.

Results: Sixty-three patients consented to participate, 44 completed baseline questionnaires; the feasibility objective of recruiting 80% of eligible patients was not met. A 90% completion rate for patient questionnaires was seen at 1-month follow-up and decreased up to 12 months. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated at 0.77 and 0.89 for the AAT and TE/I group, respectively. Case report form completion by study staff and patient diary completion was moderate and low, respectively. Collaborating with hospital case-costing specialists to identify direct medical costs was reliable and efficient.

Conclusions: A future large-scale study is feasible. However, due to a diminishing rate of questionnaire completion, almost twice as many patients need to be recruited than expected to have adequate power. Cost data collection from hospital sources was reliable. Case report forms need to be tailored more toward a busy hospital setting.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article. This project was funded by the McMaster Surgical Associates (MSA) from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Patient recruitment and retention data. n, number of patients.

References

    1. Maddams J, Utley M, Møller H. Projections of cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom, 2010–2040 Br J Cancer. 2012;107:1195–1202.
    1. DeSantis CE, Ma J, Goding Sauer A, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2017, racial disparity in mortality by state. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:439–448.
    1. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (SEER). 2020. Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer; Available at . Accessed April 22, 2020.
    1. Panchal H, Matros E. Current trends in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;1405S Advances in Breast Reconstruction7S–13S.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project—Statistical Brief #228 2017. Available at . Accessed April 22, 2020.
    1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons, (ASPS). 2017 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report: ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2018. Available at . Accessed April 15, 2020.
    1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). 2008 Report of the 2007 statistics. 2008National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Statistics; Available at . Accessed April 15, 2020.
    1. Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. Comparison of psychological aspects and patient satisfaction following breast conserving surgery, simple mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1938–1943.
    1. Serletti JM, Fosnot J, Nelson JA, et al. Breast reconstruction after breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:124e–135e.
    1. Thorarinsson A, Fröjd V, Kölby L, et al. Long-term health-related quality of life after breast reconstruction: comparing 4 different methods of reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1316.
    1. Sgarzani R, Negosanti L, Morselli PG, et al. Patient satisfaction and quality of life in DIEAP flap versus implant breast reconstruction. Surg Res Pract. 2015;2015:405163.
    1. Pirro O, Mestak O, Vindigni V, et al. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after implant versus autologous tissue breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1217.
    1. Tsoi B, Ziolkowski NI, Thoma A, et al. Safety of tissue expander/implant versus autologous abdominal tissue breast reconstruction in postmastectomy breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:234–249.
    1. Krahn M, Bryan S, Lee K, et al. Embracing the science of value in health. CMAJ. 2019;191:E733–E736.
    1. Gold MR, Franks P, McCoy KI, et al. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values. Med Care. 1998;36:778–792.
    1. Drummond M. Twenty years of using economic evaluations for drug reimbursement decisions: what has been achieved? J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38:1081–1102.
    1. Thoma A, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, et al. Cost-utility analysis comparing free and pedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2003;23:287–295.
    1. Thoma A, Veltri K, Khuthaila D, et al. Comparison of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1650–1661.
    1. Thoma A, Jansen L, Sprague S, et al. A comparison of the superficial inferior epigastric artery flap and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Can J Plast Surg. 2008;16:77–84.
    1. Thoma A, Kaur MN, Tsoi B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis parallel to a randomized controlled trial comparing vertical scar reduction and inverted T-shaped reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:1093–1107.
    1. Ziolkowski NI, Voineskos SH, Ignacy TA, et al. Systematic review of economic evaluations in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:191–203.
    1. Li G, Lancaster GA, Thabane L. How to assess a pilot trial in surgery. In: Evidence-Based Surgery: A Guide to Understanding and Interpreting the Surgical Literature. 2019;Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature; 115–124.
    1. Billingham SA, Whitehead AL, Julious SA. An audit of sample sizes for pilot and feasibility trials being undertaken in the United Kingdom registered in the United Kingdom Clinical Research Network database. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:104.
    1. Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33:375–384.
    1. OPTUM. SF-12vs Health Survey. 2020. Available at . Accessed May 27, 2020.
    1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. BREAST-Q Users’ Manual Version 2.0 2015. Available at . Accessed May 26, 2020.
    1. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 20053rd edOxford: Oxford University Press;
    1. Murphy J, Duku EK, Thoma A, et al. Thoma A, Sprague S, Voineskos S, et al., eds. Power and sample size. In: Evidence-Based Surgery: A Guide to Understanding and Interpreting the Surgical Literature. 2019;Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature; 311–326.
    1. IBM. SPSS Version 25 2019. Available at . Accessed May 26, 2020.
    1. Voineskos SH, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, et al. Giving meaning to differences in BREAST-Q scores: minimal important difference for breast reconstruction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:11e–20e.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe