1. A Comparison of Quality of Life, Cosmesis and Cost-Utility of Open Surgery, Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy and High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Breast Fibroadenoma.
- Author
-
Li Z, Yue X, Pan F, Yang L, Xiao Y, Mu D, Liu H, Chen M, Yin H, Huang H, Wang Z, and Zhang C
- Subjects
- Humans, Female, Adult, Vacuum, High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation economics, High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation methods, Patient Satisfaction, Middle Aged, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Breast Neoplasms surgery, Breast Neoplasms diagnostic imaging, Breast Neoplasms pathology, Quality of Life, Fibroadenoma diagnostic imaging, Fibroadenoma surgery, Fibroadenoma pathology, Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Abstract
Rationale and Objectives: To compare the quality of life (QOL), cosmesis and cost-utility of open surgery (OS), vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) and high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for fibroadenoma (FA)., Materials and Methods: A total of 162 patients with 267 FAs were enrolled. Baseline characteristics and treatment information were recorded. Patients were followed up at 3-, 6- and 12-month post-treatment. QOL was evaluated by health survey. Breast cosmesis was evaluated by self-rating survey and Harvard Scale. A decision-analytic model was established and incremental cost was calculated for cost-utility analysis., Results: For QOL evaluation, there was no difference of physical component summary (PCS) score in three groups (P > 0.05), while the mental component summary (MCS) score was significantly higher in HIFU group than the other two groups at 3- and 6-month post-treatment (P < 0.05). The proportion of patients satisfied with breast cosmesis was significantly higher in HIFU group (96.49%) than in VABB group (54.90%) and OS group (49.99%) (P < 0.05). By Harvard Scale, 27.78%, 78.42% and 100.00% of patients were rated as excellent and good in OS group, VABB group and HIFU group, respectively (P < 0.05). To acquire a quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost of OS, VABB and HIFU was 1034.31 USD, 1776.96 USD and 1277.67 USD, respectively. When compared to OS, incremental cost analysis showed HIFU was cost-effective, while VABB was not., Conclusion: OS, VABB and HIFU were all effective and safe for FA, but among these three treatments, HIFU had the best QOL improvement, breast cosmesis and cost-effectiveness., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Zhibiao Wang reports a relationship with Chongqing Haifu Medical Technology Co., Ltd that includes: consulting or advisory. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Conflicts of Interest Statement The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Zhibiao Wang is a senior consultant to Chongqing Haifu Medical Technology Co., Ltd. The other authors report no conflict of interest to declare. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF