Cost-utility analysis of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer

Casimir A.E. Kouwenberg*, Marc A.M. Mureau, Leonieke W. Kranenburg, Hinne Rakhorst, Daniëlle de Leeuw, Taco M.A.L. Klem, Linetta B. Koppert, Isaac Corro Ramos, Jan J. Busschbach

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)
62 Downloads (Pure)


Background: The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer: mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy (BCT), implant breast reconstruction (BR) and autologous-BR. Methods: Patient-level healthcare consumption data and results of a large quality of life (QoL) study from five Dutch hospitals were combined. The cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10-year follow-up period. Costs were assessed from a healthcare provider perspective. Results: BCT resulted in comparable QoL with lower costs compared to implant-BR and autologous-BR and showed better QoL with higher costs than mastectomy (€17,246/QALY). QoL outcomes and costs of especially autologous-BR were affected by the relatively high occurrence of complications. If reconstruction following mastectomy was performed, implant-BR was more cost-effective than autologous-BR. Conclusion: The occurrence of complications had a substantial effect on costs and QoL outcomes of different surgical pathways for breast cancer. When this was taken into account, BCT was most the cost-effective treatment. Even with higher costs and a higher risk of complications, implant-BR and autologous-BR remained cost-effective over mastectomy. This pleas for adapting surgical pathways to individual patient preferences in the trade-off between the risks of complications and expected outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1299-1308
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Surgical Oncology
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2021

Bibliographical note

Source of funding:
Funding received from the Esser Foundation. Prof. Dr. Busschbach is a member of the non-profit EuroQoL Group and receives financial compensation for managerial activities for the group. For the remaining authors, none were declared.

Publisher Copyright: © 2020


Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-utility analysis of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this