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

Rationale and ObjectivesTo 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 MethodsA 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionOS, 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. 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). 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. 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. 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.