Monte Carlo Simulation to Analyze the Cost-Benefit of Radioactive Seed Localization Versus Wire Localization for Breast-Conserving Surgery in Fee-for-Service Health Care Systems Compared With Accountable Care Organizations

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-158
Author(s):  
J.W. Jakub
2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (13) ◽  
pp. 4121-4127 ◽  
Author(s):  
James O. Murphy ◽  
Tracy-Ann Moo ◽  
Tari A. King ◽  
Kimberly J. Van Zee ◽  
Kristine A. Villegas ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
James A Wheeler ◽  
Fang Liu

Purpose: To compare the positive margin rates for women with nonpalpable breast tumors who underwent breast conserving surgery with wire localization versus those with radioactive seed localization in a small community hospital and to compare the size of the corresponding breast specimens.Introduction: Wire localization (WL) has been the standard technique to assist in the removal of nonpalpable breast tumors for the past three decades for patients undergoing breast conserving surgery. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is an alternative technique that provides advantages of patient comfort and scheduling convenience. There are numerous studies from large academic centers, but little information on how successfully this technique can be implemented in community hospitals.Methods:         Thirty-five patients who underwent WL between September 18, 2013 and December 10, 2014 were compared to 110 patients who underwent RSL between February 12, 2014 and December 16, 2015. Results: Three of the 35 WL patients (8.5%) had a positive margin compared to 14 of the 110 RSL patients (12.7%), but this difference was not statistically significant (p-value 0.763). The breast specimen weight had a geometric mean of 30.26 g for the WL patients and 32.78 g for the RSL patients, a difference of 8.3%, which was not statistically significant. Positive margin rates did not depend on the surgeon or the radiologist placing the I-125 localization seed.Conclusion: The RSL technique can be implemented in community hospitals with the expectation of having the same positive margin rates as reported from academic centers.


2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
James A. Wheeler ◽  
Karlyn Harrod ◽  
Fang Liu ◽  
Elizabeth Garber ◽  
Lisa Grove-Narayan ◽  
...  

Purpose: To compare the positive margin rates for women with nonpalpable breast tumors whom had wire localization compared to radioactive seed localization in a small community hospital.Introduction: Wire localized (WL) breast biopsies have been performed on patients with nonpalpable breast lesions for many years. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) offers advantages of patient comfort and scheduling convenience.There is an extensive literature from large centers regarding the RSL technique. Little is known whether physicians performing these procedures in smaller community hospitals can achieve comparable negative margin rates as those performed with wire localization.Methods: The thirty-six patients who underwent wire localized breast conserving surgery between September 18, 2013 and December 10, 2014, were compared to the 48 radioactive seed localization patients resected between February 12, 2014 and December 18, 2014. The primary objective was to determine if the introduction of the radioactive seed localization technique significantly changed the positive margin rate.Results: Two of 36 wire localized breast biopsied patients had positive margins, compared to 5 of 48 radioactive seed localization patients, a difference which is not statistically different. The specimen weight was larger for the patients treated with the RSL technique. There was a trend toward a higher positive margin rate with older patients.Conclusion: The positive margin rate was similar between the wire localized and radioactive seed localized patients, and comparable to those in the published literature.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Godwin D Giebel

BACKGROUND With an estimated prevalence of around 3% and an about 2.5-fold increased risk of stroke, atrial fibrillation (AF) is a serious threat for patients and a high economic burden for health care systems all over the world. Patients with AF could benefit from screening through mobile health (mHealth) devices. Thus, an early diagnosis is possible with mHealth devices, and the risk for stroke can be markedly reduced by using anticoagulation therapy. OBJECTIVE The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of algorithm-based screening for AF with the aid of photoplethysmography wrist-worn mHealth devices. Even if prevented strokes and prevented deaths from stroke are the most relevant patient outcomes, direct costs were defined as the primary outcome. METHODS A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted based on a developed state-transition model; 30,000 patients for each CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category [female]) score from 1 to 9 were simulated. The first simulation served to estimate the economic burden of AF without the use of mHealth devices. The second simulation served to simulate the economic burden of AF with the use of mHealth devices. Afterwards, the groups were compared in terms of costs, prevented strokes, and deaths from strokes. RESULTS The CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc score as well as the electrocardiography (ECG) confirmation rate had the biggest impact on costs as well as number of strokes. The higher the risk score, the lower were the costs per prevented stroke. Higher ECG confirmation rates intensified this effect. The effect was not seen in groups with lower risk scores. Over 10 years, the use of mHealth (assuming a 75% ECG confirmation rate) resulted in additional costs (€1=US $1.12) of €441, €567, €536, €520, €606, €625, €623, €692, and €847 per patient for a CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc score of 1 to 9, respectively. The number of prevented strokes tended to be higher in groups with high risk for stroke. Higher ECG confirmation rates led to higher numbers of prevented strokes. The use of mHealth (assuming a 75% ECG confirmation rate) resulted in 25 (7), –68 (–54), 98 (–5), 266 (182), 346 (271), 642 (440), 722 (599), 1111 (815), and 1116 (928) prevented strokes (fatal) for CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc score of 1 to 9, respectively. Higher device accuracy in terms of sensitivity led to even more prevented fatal strokes. CONCLUSIONS The use of mHealth devices to screen for AF leads to increased costs but also a reduction in the incidence of stroke. In particular, in patients with high CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc scores, the risk for stroke and death from stroke can be markedly reduced.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ari R. Joffe

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic in 2020. In response, most countries in the world implemented lockdowns, restricting their population's movements, work, education, gatherings, and general activities in attempt to “flatten the curve” of COVID-19 cases. The public health goal of lockdowns was to save the population from COVID-19 cases and deaths, and to prevent overwhelming health care systems with COVID-19 patients. In this narrative review I explain why I changed my mind about supporting lockdowns. The initial modeling predictions induced fear and crowd-effects (i.e., groupthink). Over time, important information emerged relevant to the modeling, including the lower infection fatality rate (median 0.23%), clarification of high-risk groups (specifically, those 70 years of age and older), lower herd immunity thresholds (likely 20–40% population immunity), and the difficult exit strategies. In addition, information emerged on significant collateral damage due to the response to the pandemic, adversely affecting many millions of people with poverty, food insecurity, loneliness, unemployment, school closures, and interrupted healthcare. Raw numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths were difficult to interpret, and may be tempered by information placing the number of COVID-19 deaths in proper context and perspective relative to background rates. Considering this information, a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 finds that lockdowns are far more harmful to public health (at least 5–10 times so in terms of wellbeing years) than COVID-19 can be. Controversies and objections about the main points made are considered and addressed. Progress in the response to COVID-19 depends on considering the trade-offs discussed here that determine the wellbeing of populations. I close with some suggestions for moving forward, including focused protection of those truly at high risk, opening of schools, and building back better with a economy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document