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 OBJECTIVES: 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).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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.

CONCLUSION: 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.