The Society of Surgical Oncology, inc.
The American Society of Breast Surgeons.
Annals of Surgical Oncology

Log in | Register

A Systematic Review of Utility Score Assessments in the Breast Surgery Cost-Analysis Literature

Alexander Y. Yoon MS, Laura Bozzuto MD, Andrew J. Seto BS, Carla S. Fisher MD, Abhishek Chatterjee MD, MBA
Health Services Research and Global Oncology
Volume 26, Issue 5 / May , 2019



Surgery for breast cancer can have significant impact on patient quality-of-life. Cost-utility analysis provides a way to analyze the economic impact of a surgical procedure with the change in a patient’s quality of life. Utility scores are used in these analyses to quantify the impact on quality of life. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on breast cancer surgical procedures to compile a repository of utility scores and to assess gaps in the current literature.


Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed for studies reporting utility scores for breast surgery and breast reconstruction. The health states and utility scores were extracted and grouped into seven procedural categories based on oncologic and reconstructive methods. Mean utility score and ranges were calculated and reported for each procedural category.


Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria assessing 118 health states. Most utility scores were obtained from healthcare professionals. Breast-conserving therapy yielded the highest mean utility score at 0.79, whereas mastectomy yielded a mean utility score of 0.75. Among reconstruction health states, implant reconstruction had a lower score than autologous reconstruction (0.64 implant vs. latissimus dorsi 0.69 and TRAM/DIEP 0.71). No utility scores were found associated with oncoplasty or nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures.


A reliable body of utility scores is important in enabling future cost-utility and value-based analysis comparisons for breast surgical oncology. Additional work is needed to obtain health state assessments from the patient perspective, as well as assessment of more modern surgical and reconstructive approaches.

Add a comment

0 comment(s)



Join the conversation!

Follow the journal on Twitter and Facebook

Help to expand the reach of the journal to support the research and practice needs of surgical oncologists and their patients.