Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Case Reports
. 2021 Dec 1;274(6):e581-e588.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003746.

Is Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction Cost-effective?

Anna Rose Johnson  1 , Ammar Asban  2 , Melisa D Granoff  1 , Christine O Kang  1 , Bernard T Lee  1 , Abhishek Chatterjee  3 , Dhruv Singhal  1
Affiliations
Case Reports

Is Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction Cost-effective?

Anna Rose Johnson et al. Ann Surg. .

Abstract

Mini: We conducted a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost and quality of life of patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and ALND with regional lymph node radiation (RLNR), with and without lymphatic microsurgical preventive healing approach (LYMPHA), in a node-positive breast cancer population. We found that the addition of LYMPHA to both ALND or ALND with RLNR is more cost-effective.

Objective: This manuscript is the first to employ rigorous methodological criteria to critically appraise a surgical preventative technique for breast cancer-related lymphedema from a cost-utility standpoint.

Summary of background data: Breast cancer-related lymphedema is a well-documented complication of breast cancer survivors in the US. In this study, we conduct a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the LYMPHA.

Methods: Lymphedema rates after each of the following surgical options: (1) ALND, (2) ALND + LYMPHA, (3) ALND + RLNR, (4) ALND + RLNR + LYMPHA were extracted from a recently published meta-analysis. Procedural costs were calculated using Medicare reimbursement rates. Average utility scores were obtained for each health state using a visual analog scale, then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A decision tree was generated and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were calculated. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate our findings.

Results: ALND with LYMPHA was more cost-effective with an ICUR of $1587.73/QALY. In the decision tree rollback analysis, a clinical effectiveness gain of 1.35 QALY justified an increased incremental cost of $2140. Similarly, the addition of LYMPHA to ALND with RLNR was more cost-effective with an ICUR of $699.84/QALY. In the decision tree rollback analysis, a clinical effectiveness gain of 2.98 QALY justified a higher incremental cost of $2085.00.

Conclusions: Our study supports that the addition of LYMPHA to both ALND or ALND with RLNR is the more cost-effective treatment option.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool, Based on November 2017 Submission Data (1999–2015): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. 2018. Available at: www.cdc.gov/cancer/dataviz . [Accessed March 18, 2019]
    1. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66:271–289.
    1. Fu MR. Breast cancer-related lymphedema: symptoms, diagnosis, risk reduction, and management. World J Clin Oncol 2014; 5:241–247.
    1. DiSipio T, Rye S, Newman B, et al. Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14:500–515.
    1. Basta MN, Wu LC, Kanchwala SK, et al. Reliable prediction of postmastectomy lymphedema: the risk assessment tool evaluating lymphedema. Am J Surg 2017; 213:1125–1133.e1.

Publication types