scholarly journals Breast Cancer–Related Lymphedema: Comparing Direct Costs of a Prospective Surveillance Model and a Traditional Model of Care

2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole L. Stout ◽  
Lucinda A. Pfalzer ◽  
Barbara Springer ◽  
Ellen Levy ◽  
Charles L. McGarvey ◽  
...  

Secondary prevention involves monitoring and screening to prevent negative sequelae from chronic diseases such as cancer. Breast cancer treatment sequelae, such as lymphedema, may occur early or late and often negatively affect function. Secondary prevention through prospective physical therapy surveillance aids in early identification and treatment of breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL). Early intervention may reduce the need for intensive rehabilitation and may be cost saving. This perspective article compares a prospective surveillance model with a traditional model of impairment-based care and examines direct treatment costs associated with each program. Intervention and supply costs were estimated based on the Medicare 2009 physician fee schedule for 2 groups: (1) a prospective surveillance model group (PSM group) and (2) a traditional model group (TM group). The PSM group comprised all women with breast cancer who were receiving interval prospective surveillance, assuming that one third would develop early-stage BCRL. The prospective surveillance model includes the cost of screening all women plus the cost of intervention for early-stage BCRL. The TM group comprised women referred for BCRL treatment using a traditional model of referral based on late-stage lymphedema. The traditional model cost includes the direct cost of treating patients with advanced-stage lymphedema. The cost to manage early-stage BCRL per patient per year using a prospective surveillance model is $636.19. The cost to manage late-stage BCRL per patient per year using a traditional model is $3,124.92. The prospective surveillance model is emerging as the standard of care in breast cancer treatment and is a potential cost-saving mechanism for BCRL treatment. Further analysis of indirect costs and utility is necessary to assess cost-effectiveness. A shift in the paradigm of physical therapy toward a prospective surveillance model is warranted.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 2435-2444 ◽  
Author(s):  
J H Silber ◽  
M Fridman ◽  
A Shpilsky ◽  
O Even-Shoshan ◽  
D S Smink ◽  
...  

PURPOSE To model the cost-effectiveness (CE) of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in early-stage breast cancer when its use is directed to those most in need of the medication. METHODS A conditional CE model was developed for the use of G-CSF based on a ranking of patient need as determined by patient blood counts during the first cycle of chemotherapy. In the base case, no G-CSF was used. In the alternative case, G-CSF was used in the following manner. If the risk of a neutropenic event (as defined by a predictive model based on nadir absolute neutrophil count [ANC] and hemoglobin decrease in cycle 1) was equal to or exceeded a predetermined critical value "T," then patients would receive G-CSF in cycles 2 through 6 of chemotherapy. If the risk of an event was less than T, patients would not use G-CSF unless an event occurred, at which time G-CSF would be administered with every subsequent cycle. RESULTS A decision rule (T) that would allow the most needy 50% of early-stage breast cancer patients to receive G-CSF after the first cycle of chemotherapy resulted in a CE ratio of $34,297 dollars per life-year saved (LYS). If only the most needy 10% of patients received G-CSF, then the associated CE ratio was $23,748/LYS; if 90% of patients could receive the medication, the CE ratio would be $76,487/LYS. These estimates were relatively insensitive to inpatient hospital cost estimates (inpatient costs for fever and neutropenia of $3,090 to $7,726 per admission produced dollar per LYS figures of $34,297 to $32,415, respectively). However, the model was sensitive to assumptions about the shape of the relationship between dose reduction and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 years. CONCLUSION Providing G-CSF to the neediest 50% of early-stage breast cancer patients (as defined by first-cycle blood counts) starting after the first cycle of chemotherapy is associated with a CE ratio of $34,297/LYS, which is well in the range of CE ratios for treatment of other common medical conditions. Furthermore, conditional CE studies, based on predictive models that incorporate individual patient risk, allow one to define populations for which therapy is, or is not, cost-effective. Limitations of our present understanding of the shape of the chemotherapy dose-response curve, especially at low levels of dose reductions, affect these results. Further work is required to define the shape of the dose-response curve in early-stage breast cancer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 255-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavankumar Tandra ◽  
Avyakta Kallam ◽  
Jairam Krishnamurthy

Breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL) is a potentially debilitating and often irreversible complication of breast cancer treatment. Risk of BCRL is proportional to the extent of axillary surgery and radiation. Other risk factors include obesity and infections. Given the 5-year survival rate of 90% and its potential impact on the quality of life of survivors of breast cancer, BCRL has become a significant financial burden on the health care system. Minimizing axillary surgery and radiation has been proven to reduce the risk of BCRL. Comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment at the time of initial diagnosis; early referral to physical therapy after surgery; and patient education regarding weight loss, skin, and nail care are cornerstones of the management of early-stage lymphedema. End-stage lymphedema may benefit from referral to a plastic surgeon specializing in lymphedema surgery. In this review, we attempt to review the incidence, risk factors, staging, prevention, and management of this complication of breast cancer treatment. We also describe our multidisciplinary approach for the prevention of this complication at the time of initial diagnosis.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6590-6590
Author(s):  
Sandy Rose Truong ◽  
William Thomas Barry ◽  
Javid J. Moslehi ◽  
Emily Baker ◽  
Erica L. Mayer ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document