This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Mammography  • Alert me on articles by topic

Bridget N. Fahy, MD; Richard J. Bold, MD; Philip D. Schneider, MD,PhD; Vijay Khatri, MD; James E. Goodnight, Jr, MD,PhD

Arch Surg. 2001;136:990-995.

Hypothesis  Stereotactic core biopsy (SCB) is more cost-effective than needle-localized biopsy (NLB) for evaluation and treatment of mammographic lesions.

Design  A computer-generated mathematical model was developed based on clinical outcome modeling to estimate costs accrued during evaluation and treatment of suspicious mammographic lesions. Total costs were determined for evaluation and subsequent treatment of cancer when either SCB or NLB was used as the initial biopsy method. Cost was estimated by the cumulative work relative value units accrued. The risk of malignancy based on the Breast Imaging Reporting Data System (BIRADS) score and mammographic suspicion of ductal carcinoma in situ were varied to simulate common clinical scenarios.

Main Outcome Measures  Total cost accumulated during evaluation and subsequent surgical therapy (if required).

Results  Evaluation of BIRADS 5 lesions (highly suggestive, risk of malignancy = 90%) resulted in equivalent relative value units for both techniques (SCB, 15.54; NLB, 15.47). Evaluation of lesions highly suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ yielded similar total treatment relative value units (SCB, 11.49; NLB, 10.17). Only for evaluation of BIRADS 4 lesions (suspicious abnormality, risk of malignancy = 34%) was SCB more cost-effective than NLB (SCB, 7.65 vs NLB, 15.66).

Conclusions  No difference in cost-benefit was found when lesions highly suggestive of malignancy (BIRADS 5) or those suspicious for ductal carcinoma in situ were evaluated initially with SCB vs NLB, thereby disproving the hypothesis. Only for intermediate-risk lesions (BIRADS 4) did initial evaluation with SCB yield a greater cost savings than with NLB.

From the Department of Surgery, University of California–Davis Medical Center, Sacramento.

RELATED ARTICLES

Archives of Surgery Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Surg. 2001;136(9):1089-1090.
FULL TEXT  

This Month in Archives of Surgery
Arch Surg. 2001;136(9):986.
FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Association of Clinical and Pathologic Variables with Lumpectomy Surgical Margin Status after Preoperative Diagnosis or Excisional Biopsy of Invasive Breast Cancer
Smitt and Horst
Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2007;14:1040-1044.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

External Imaging of CCND1, MYC, and KRAS Oncogene mRNAs with Tumor-Targeted Radionuclide-PNA-Peptide Chimeras
TIAN et al.
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2005;1059:106-144.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

External Imaging of CCND1 Cancer Gene Activity in Experimental Human Breast Cancer Xenografts with 99mTc-Peptide-Peptide Nucleic Acid-Peptide Chimeras
Tian et al.
JNM 2004;45:2070-2082.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost Minimization Study of Image-Guided Core Biopsy Versus Surgical Excisional Biopsy for Women With Abnormal Mammograms
Golub et al.
JCO 2004;22:2430-2437.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT