The Role of Cryoablation in Breast Cancer Beyond the Oncologic Control: COST and Breast-Q Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Abstract

Cryoablation has been established as a minimally invasive alternative to resection of early-stage breast cancer; however, there are no data on the cost and impact on patients' financial, psychosocial, sexual, physical, and cosmetic outcomes utilizing this approach. This study compares cost-effectiveness and patient-reported quality-of-life factors in cryoablation versus resection. Women with early-stage, low-risk infiltrating ductal carcinomas ≤ 1.5 cm underwent cryoablation or resection. Adjuvant therapy was provided according to tumor board recommendations. Direct and indirect costs were tracked for both groups. Financial toxicity and well-being outcome were measured by administering the Comprehensive Score of Financial Toxicity (COST) and BREAST-Q surveys, respectively, at 6-month follow-up. Of the 34 eligible patients, 14 (41.1%) consented for cryoablation and 20 (58.8%) underwent resection. The median (centile) (range) follow-up was 35.0 (21.3) (15-50) months for cryoablation vs. 25 (20.8) (17-50) months for resection [p = 0.6479]. Mean (standard deviation) cost of care for cryoablation versus resection was $2221.70 (615.70) versus $16,896.50 (1332.40) [p < 0.0001], and median financial well-being scores for the cryoablation versus resection groups were 38.0 (34.5, 40.0) versus 10 (5.3, 14.0) [p < 0.0001]. Poor financial well-being was directly correlated with the cost of care [p < 0.0001]. Median psychosocial well-being scores were similar across both groups, however the cryoablation group had higher scores for physical [100 (100, 100) vs. 89 (79, 100); p = 0.0141], sexual [100 (91, 100) vs. 91 (87.5, 91); p = 0.0079], and cosmetic [100 (100, 100) vs. 88 (88, 100); p = 0.0171] outcomes. Cryoablation offers a cost-effective and quality-of-life advantage compared with resection for early-stage, low-risk breast cancer.