Financial toxicity and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: an analysis using propensity score methods

Purpose Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is increasingly performed in average-risk patients despite the lack of survival benefit. In an era of heightened awareness of healthcare costs, we sought to determine the impact of CPM on financial toxicity in breast cancer. Methods A single-instit...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Breast cancer research and treatment 2020-10, Vol.183 (3), p.649-659
Hauptverfasser: Asaad, Malke, Boukovalas, Stefanos, Chu, Carrie K., Lin, Yu-Li, Checka, Cristina M., Clemens, Mark W., Greenup, Rachel A., Offodile, Anaeze C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 659
container_issue 3
container_start_page 649
container_title Breast cancer research and treatment
container_volume 183
creator Asaad, Malke
Boukovalas, Stefanos
Chu, Carrie K.
Lin, Yu-Li
Checka, Cristina M.
Clemens, Mark W.
Greenup, Rachel A.
Offodile, Anaeze C.
description Purpose Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is increasingly performed in average-risk patients despite the lack of survival benefit. In an era of heightened awareness of healthcare costs, we sought to determine the impact of CPM on financial toxicity in breast cancer. Methods A single-institution propensity-matched analysis of female patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without CPM for breast cancer over an 18-month period. Patients with a history of genetic predisposition or bilateral cancer were excluded. The validated Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) evaluated financial toxicity among participants. Multivariable regression analysis evaluated the relationship between CPM and financial toxicity. Relevant domains of the Breast Q and SF12 instruments were examined as secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analysis was performed using propensity-weighting to examine robustness of results and increase our sample size. Results Overall, 104 patients were identified, equally distributed across UM and CPM. CPM was not associated with financial toxicity, as evidenced by comparable COST scores (adjusted difference, 1.53 [− 3.24 to 6.29]). Minor complications were significantly lower in UM patients (UM, 8%; CPM, 31%). CPM was associated with significantly higher Breast Q psychosocial well-being score (adjusted difference, 10.58 [1.34 to 19.83]). BREAST Q surgeon satisfaction, SF12 mental and physical component scores were comparable. Similar results were noted on sensitivity analysis involving 194 patients. Conclusions Choice for CPM was associated with higher minor complications, but led to improved psychosocial well-being without a higher degree of patient-reported financial toxicity. Prospective studies are needed to discern the influence of CPM on the incidence and trajectory of financial toxicity.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10549-020-05805-0
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_webof</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_healthsolutions_A635722913</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A635722913</galeid><sourcerecordid>A635722913</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-20b7f0f430c5b9f057b6ae11cdb343cc30dbebc30025d63b952a494baf6b0ada3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNklGLFSEUxyWK9rb1BXoaCCKI2Y466kxvy6WtYKGXehZ1nHtdHL2NDjXfPmcnajciUjkH5Pc_Hg9_hJ5juMAA4k3CwJquBgI1sBZYDQ_QDjNBa0GweIh2gLmoeQv8DD1J6QYAOgHdY3RGCe8wFe0OHa9cUME45ascvzvj8lKp0Fcmhjwpr7ItsTpN8XRcvDLZmWpUKVuT47i8LWg5yi_JpWpOLhxuURvSWieZONlqtPkY-_QUPRqUT_bZz3yOvly9-7z_UF9_ev9xf3ldm4ZBrgloMcDQUDBMdwMwobmyGJte04YaQ6HXVpcEhPWc6o4R1XSNVgPXoHpFz9GrrW5p5OtsU5ajS8Z6r4KNc5KkIazt2hIK-uIP9CbOU_nOSjWkpZzjO9RBeStdGGIZjFmLyktOmSCkjLJQF3-hyu7t6Mow7eDK_T3ByzuCo1U-H1P0c3YxpPsg2UAzxZQmO8jT5EY1LRKDXH0gNx_I4gN56wMJRdRuom9WxyEZZ4Oxv4TFCIwB6zisC-9dVuuz-ziHXKSv_19aaLrRqRDhYKffM_xHez8AC1bUIw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2442836618</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Financial toxicity and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: an analysis using propensity score methods</title><source>Springer Online Journals Complete</source><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><creator>Asaad, Malke ; Boukovalas, Stefanos ; Chu, Carrie K. ; Lin, Yu-Li ; Checka, Cristina M. ; Clemens, Mark W. ; Greenup, Rachel A. ; Offodile, Anaeze C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Asaad, Malke ; Boukovalas, Stefanos ; Chu, Carrie K. ; Lin, Yu-Li ; Checka, Cristina M. ; Clemens, Mark W. ; Greenup, Rachel A. ; Offodile, Anaeze C.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is increasingly performed in average-risk patients despite the lack of survival benefit. In an era of heightened awareness of healthcare costs, we sought to determine the impact of CPM on financial toxicity in breast cancer. Methods A single-institution propensity-matched analysis of female patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without CPM for breast cancer over an 18-month period. Patients with a history of genetic predisposition or bilateral cancer were excluded. The validated Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) evaluated financial toxicity among participants. Multivariable regression analysis evaluated the relationship between CPM and financial toxicity. Relevant domains of the Breast Q and SF12 instruments were examined as secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analysis was performed using propensity-weighting to examine robustness of results and increase our sample size. Results Overall, 104 patients were identified, equally distributed across UM and CPM. CPM was not associated with financial toxicity, as evidenced by comparable COST scores (adjusted difference, 1.53 [− 3.24 to 6.29]). Minor complications were significantly lower in UM patients (UM, 8%; CPM, 31%). CPM was associated with significantly higher Breast Q psychosocial well-being score (adjusted difference, 10.58 [1.34 to 19.83]). BREAST Q surgeon satisfaction, SF12 mental and physical component scores were comparable. Similar results were noted on sensitivity analysis involving 194 patients. Conclusions Choice for CPM was associated with higher minor complications, but led to improved psychosocial well-being without a higher degree of patient-reported financial toxicity. Prospective studies are needed to discern the influence of CPM on the incidence and trajectory of financial toxicity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-6806</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7217</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05805-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32691378</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Breast cancer ; Cancer research ; Epidemiology ; Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine ; Mastectomy ; Medical care, Cost of ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Methods ; Oncology ; Science &amp; Technology ; Sensitivity analysis ; Surgery ; Toxicity</subject><ispartof>Breast cancer research and treatment, 2020-10, Vol.183 (3), p.649-659</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Springer</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>10</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000550596000001</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-20b7f0f430c5b9f057b6ae11cdb343cc30dbebc30025d63b952a494baf6b0ada3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-20b7f0f430c5b9f057b6ae11cdb343cc30dbebc30025d63b952a494baf6b0ada3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5169-4589 ; 0000-0002-2313-1973</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10549-020-05805-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10549-020-05805-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930,28253,41493,42562,51324</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Asaad, Malke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boukovalas, Stefanos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chu, Carrie K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Yu-Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Checka, Cristina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clemens, Mark W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenup, Rachel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Offodile, Anaeze C.</creatorcontrib><title>Financial toxicity and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: an analysis using propensity score methods</title><title>Breast cancer research and treatment</title><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><addtitle>BREAST CANCER RES TR</addtitle><description>Purpose Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is increasingly performed in average-risk patients despite the lack of survival benefit. In an era of heightened awareness of healthcare costs, we sought to determine the impact of CPM on financial toxicity in breast cancer. Methods A single-institution propensity-matched analysis of female patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without CPM for breast cancer over an 18-month period. Patients with a history of genetic predisposition or bilateral cancer were excluded. The validated Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) evaluated financial toxicity among participants. Multivariable regression analysis evaluated the relationship between CPM and financial toxicity. Relevant domains of the Breast Q and SF12 instruments were examined as secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analysis was performed using propensity-weighting to examine robustness of results and increase our sample size. Results Overall, 104 patients were identified, equally distributed across UM and CPM. CPM was not associated with financial toxicity, as evidenced by comparable COST scores (adjusted difference, 1.53 [− 3.24 to 6.29]). Minor complications were significantly lower in UM patients (UM, 8%; CPM, 31%). CPM was associated with significantly higher Breast Q psychosocial well-being score (adjusted difference, 10.58 [1.34 to 19.83]). BREAST Q surgeon satisfaction, SF12 mental and physical component scores were comparable. Similar results were noted on sensitivity analysis involving 194 patients. Conclusions Choice for CPM was associated with higher minor complications, but led to improved psychosocial well-being without a higher degree of patient-reported financial toxicity. Prospective studies are needed to discern the influence of CPM on the incidence and trajectory of financial toxicity.</description><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Cancer research</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</subject><subject>Mastectomy</subject><subject>Medical care, Cost of</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Science &amp; Technology</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Toxicity</subject><issn>0167-6806</issn><issn>1573-7217</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AOWDO</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNklGLFSEUxyWK9rb1BXoaCCKI2Y466kxvy6WtYKGXehZ1nHtdHL2NDjXfPmcnajciUjkH5Pc_Hg9_hJ5juMAA4k3CwJquBgI1sBZYDQ_QDjNBa0GweIh2gLmoeQv8DD1J6QYAOgHdY3RGCe8wFe0OHa9cUME45ascvzvj8lKp0Fcmhjwpr7ItsTpN8XRcvDLZmWpUKVuT47i8LWg5yi_JpWpOLhxuURvSWieZONlqtPkY-_QUPRqUT_bZz3yOvly9-7z_UF9_ev9xf3ldm4ZBrgloMcDQUDBMdwMwobmyGJte04YaQ6HXVpcEhPWc6o4R1XSNVgPXoHpFz9GrrW5p5OtsU5ajS8Z6r4KNc5KkIazt2hIK-uIP9CbOU_nOSjWkpZzjO9RBeStdGGIZjFmLyktOmSCkjLJQF3-hyu7t6Mow7eDK_T3ByzuCo1U-H1P0c3YxpPsg2UAzxZQmO8jT5EY1LRKDXH0gNx_I4gN56wMJRdRuom9WxyEZZ4Oxv4TFCIwB6zisC-9dVuuz-ziHXKSv_19aaLrRqRDhYKffM_xHez8AC1bUIw</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Asaad, Malke</creator><creator>Boukovalas, Stefanos</creator><creator>Chu, Carrie K.</creator><creator>Lin, Yu-Li</creator><creator>Checka, Cristina M.</creator><creator>Clemens, Mark W.</creator><creator>Greenup, Rachel A.</creator><creator>Offodile, Anaeze C.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AOWDO</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5169-4589</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2313-1973</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Financial toxicity and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: an analysis using propensity score methods</title><author>Asaad, Malke ; Boukovalas, Stefanos ; Chu, Carrie K. ; Lin, Yu-Li ; Checka, Cristina M. ; Clemens, Mark W. ; Greenup, Rachel A. ; Offodile, Anaeze C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-20b7f0f430c5b9f057b6ae11cdb343cc30dbebc30025d63b952a494baf6b0ada3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Cancer research</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</topic><topic>Mastectomy</topic><topic>Medical care, Cost of</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Science &amp; Technology</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Toxicity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Asaad, Malke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boukovalas, Stefanos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chu, Carrie K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Yu-Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Checka, Cristina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clemens, Mark W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenup, Rachel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Offodile, Anaeze C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Asaad, Malke</au><au>Boukovalas, Stefanos</au><au>Chu, Carrie K.</au><au>Lin, Yu-Li</au><au>Checka, Cristina M.</au><au>Clemens, Mark W.</au><au>Greenup, Rachel A.</au><au>Offodile, Anaeze C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Financial toxicity and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: an analysis using propensity score methods</atitle><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle><stitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</stitle><stitle>BREAST CANCER RES TR</stitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>183</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>649</spage><epage>659</epage><pages>649-659</pages><issn>0167-6806</issn><eissn>1573-7217</eissn><abstract>Purpose Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is increasingly performed in average-risk patients despite the lack of survival benefit. In an era of heightened awareness of healthcare costs, we sought to determine the impact of CPM on financial toxicity in breast cancer. Methods A single-institution propensity-matched analysis of female patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without CPM for breast cancer over an 18-month period. Patients with a history of genetic predisposition or bilateral cancer were excluded. The validated Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) evaluated financial toxicity among participants. Multivariable regression analysis evaluated the relationship between CPM and financial toxicity. Relevant domains of the Breast Q and SF12 instruments were examined as secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analysis was performed using propensity-weighting to examine robustness of results and increase our sample size. Results Overall, 104 patients were identified, equally distributed across UM and CPM. CPM was not associated with financial toxicity, as evidenced by comparable COST scores (adjusted difference, 1.53 [− 3.24 to 6.29]). Minor complications were significantly lower in UM patients (UM, 8%; CPM, 31%). CPM was associated with significantly higher Breast Q psychosocial well-being score (adjusted difference, 10.58 [1.34 to 19.83]). BREAST Q surgeon satisfaction, SF12 mental and physical component scores were comparable. Similar results were noted on sensitivity analysis involving 194 patients. Conclusions Choice for CPM was associated with higher minor complications, but led to improved psychosocial well-being without a higher degree of patient-reported financial toxicity. Prospective studies are needed to discern the influence of CPM on the incidence and trajectory of financial toxicity.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>32691378</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10549-020-05805-0</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5169-4589</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2313-1973</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-6806
ispartof Breast cancer research and treatment, 2020-10, Vol.183 (3), p.649-659
issn 0167-6806
1573-7217
language eng
recordid cdi_gale_healthsolutions_A635722913
source Springer Online Journals Complete; Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />
subjects Breast cancer
Cancer research
Epidemiology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Mastectomy
Medical care, Cost of
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Methods
Oncology
Science & Technology
Sensitivity analysis
Surgery
Toxicity
title Financial toxicity and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: an analysis using propensity score methods
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T15%3A45%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_webof&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Financial%20toxicity%20and%20contralateral%20prophylactic%20mastectomy:%20an%20analysis%20using%20propensity%20score%20methods&rft.jtitle=Breast%20cancer%20research%20and%20treatment&rft.au=Asaad,%20Malke&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=183&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=649&rft.epage=659&rft.pages=649-659&rft.issn=0167-6806&rft.eissn=1573-7217&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10549-020-05805-0&rft_dat=%3Cgale_webof%3EA635722913%3C/gale_webof%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2442836618&rft_id=info:pmid/32691378&rft_galeid=A635722913&rfr_iscdi=true