| Title |
Ultrasound-Guided Core-Needle Versus Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy: A Cost Analysis Based on the American Society of Breast Surgeons’ Mastery of Breast Surgery Registry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-016-5607-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ian Grady, Tony Vasquez, Sara Tawfik, Sean Grady |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the cost-efficacy of vacuum-assisted ultrasound-guided breast biopsy instruments compared to ultrasound-guided 14-gauge spring-loaded core-needle biopsy. The American Society of Breast Surgeons' Mastery of Breast Surgery Registry was reviewed. Biopsy findings, any rebiopsy, and the instrument used were abstracted for 31,451 ultrasound-guided biopsy procedures performed between 2001 and July 2014. Rates of cancer diagnosis and rebiopsy were calculated for each instrument. A linear mathematical model was developed to calculate total cost per cancer diagnosis, including procedural costs and the costs of any additional surgical rebiopsy procedures. Mean cost per cancer diagnosis with confidence limits was then determined for 14-gauge spring-loaded core-needle biopsy and 14 different vacuum-assisted instruments. For 14-gauge spring-loaded core-needle biopsy, mean cost per cancer diagnosis was $4346 (4327-$4366). For the vacuum-assisted instruments, mean cost per cancer diagnosis ranged from a low of $3742 ($3732-$3752) to a high of $4779 ($4750-$4809). Vacuum-assisted instruments overall were more cost-effective than core with a mean cost per cancer diagnosis of $4052 ($4038-$4067) (p < 0.05). Tethered vacuum-assisted instruments performed best with a mean cost per cancer diagnosis of $3978 ($3964-$3991) (p < 0.05). Nontethered devices had a mean cost per cancer diagnosis of $4369 ($4350-$4388), a result no better than core (p < 0.05). Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy had a lower mean cost per cancer diagnosis than 14-gauge spring-loaded core-needle biopsy. This advantage was only seen in tethered vacuum-assisted instruments. Within device families, larger instruments tended to outperform smaller instruments. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,403,545
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#5,537
of 6,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,287
of 320,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#91
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.