Beyond a moonshot: insurance coverage for proton therapy

Setting the Stage: Feasibility and Baseline Characteristics in the PARTIQoL Trial Comparing Proton Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Men with localized prostate cancer may receive either photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT). The PARTIQoL trial (NCT01617161) demonstrates the feasibility of performing a large, multicenter phase 3 randomized trial comparing IMRT with PBT for localized prostate cancer. Here, we report baseline features of patients enrolled on this trial and present strategies to improve feasibility of other similar trials.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to either PBT or IMRT with stratification by institution, age, use of rectal spacer, and fractionation schedule (conventional fractionation: 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions vs moderate hypofractionation: 70.0 Gy in 28 fractions). The primary endpoint is a change from baseline bowel health using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite score 24 months after radiation therapy. Secondary objectives include treatment-related differences in urinary and erectile functions, adverse events, and efficacy endpoints.

RESULTS

Between July 2012 and November 2021, 450 patients were successfully accrued. Patients were randomly assigned to either PBT (N = 226) or to IMRT (N = 224); 13 were ineligible or withdrew before treatment. The median age of 437 analyzed patients was 68 years (range, 46-89 years). A total of 41% of patients had low-risk and 59% had intermediate-risk disease. In total, 49% of patients were treated with conventional fractionation and 51% with moderately hypofractionation. 48% of patients used a rectal spacer. For patients receiving PBT, pencil beam scanning was used in 48%. PBT and IMRT arms were balanced for baseline variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant challenges, the PARTIQoL trial demonstrated that, with targeted recruitment approaches, multicenter collaboration, payer engagement, and protocol updates to incorporate contemporary techniques, it is feasible to perform a large phase 3 randomized clinical trial to assess whether PBT improves outcomes. We will separately report primary results and continue to monitor participants for longer follow-up and secondary endpoints.

Survival outcomes and toxicity of adjuvant immunotherapy after definitive concurrent chemotherapy with proton beam radiation therapy for patients with inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvant immunotherapy (IO) following concurrent chemotherapy and photon radiation therapy confers an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (LA-NSCLC); however, outcomes of adjuvant IO after concurrent chemotherapy with proton beam therapy (CPBT) are unknown. We investigated OS and toxicity after CPBT with adjuvant IO versus CPBT alone for inoperable LA-NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 354 patients with LA-NSCLC who were prospectively treated with CPBT with or without adjuvant IO from 2009 to 2021. Optimal variable ratio propensity score matching (PSM) matched CPBT with CPBT + IO patients. Survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression evaluated the effect of IO on disease outcomes.

RESULTS

Median age was 70 years; 71 (20%) received CPBT + IO and 283 (80%) received CPBT only. After PSM, 71 CPBT patients were matched with 71 CPBT + IO patients. Three-year survival rates for CPBT + IO vs CPBT were: OS 67% vs 30% (P < 0.001) and PFS 59% vs 35% (P = 0.017). Three-year LRFS (P = 0.137) and DMFS (P = 0.086) did not differ. Receipt of adjuvant IO was a strong predictor of OS (HR 0.40, P = 0.001) and PFS (HR 0.56, P = 0.030), but not LRFS (HR 0.61, P = 0.121) or DMFS (HR 0.61, P = 0.136). There was an increased incidence of grade ≥3 esophagitis in the CPBT-only group (6% CPBT + IO vs 17% CPBT, P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

This study, one of the first to investigate CPBT followed by IO for inoperable LA-NSCLC, showed that IO conferred survival benefits with no increased rates of toxicity.

Emerging technologies for cancer therapy using accelerated particles

Cancer therapy with accelerated charged particles is one of the most valuable biomedical applications of nuclear physics. The technology has vastly evolved in the past 50 years, the number of clinical centers is exponentially growing, and recent clinical results support the physics and radiobiology rationale that particles should be less toxic and more effective than conventional X-rays for many cancer patients. Charged particles are also the most mature technology for clinical translation of ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) radiotherapy. However, the fraction of patients treated with accelerated particles is still very small and the therapy is only applied to a few solid cancer indications. The growth of particle therapy strongly depends on technological innovations aiming to make the therapy cheaper, more conformal and faster. The most promising solutions to reach these goals are superconductive magnets to build compact accelerators; gantryless beam delivery; online image-guidance and adaptive therapy with the support of machine learning algorithms; and high-intensity accelerators coupled to online imaging. Large international collaborations are needed to hasten the clinical translation of the research results.

Advances in Proton Therapy for the Management of Head and Neck Tumors

Proton therapy (PBRT) is a form of external beam radiotherapy with several dosimetric advantages compared with conventional photon (x-ray) radiotherapy. Unlike x-rays, protons deposit most of their dose over a finite range, with no exit dose, in a pattern known as the Bragg peak. Clinically, this can be exploited to optimize dose to tumors while delivering a lower integral dose to normal tissues. However, the optimal role of PBRT is not as well-defined as advanced x-ray-based techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Proton Therapy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Early Clinical Experience and Current Challenges

Simple Summary

Proton therapy is a promising type of radiation therapy used to destroy tumor cells. It has the potential to further improve the outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer since it allows to minimize the radiation dose to vital structures around the tumor, leading to less toxicity. This paper describes the current experience worldwide with proton therapy in head and neck cancer.

Abstract

Proton therapy (PT) is a promising development in radiation oncology, with the potential to further improve outcomes for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC). By utilizing the finite range of protons, healthy tissue can be spared from beam exit doses that would otherwise be irradiated with photon-based treatments. Current evidence on PT for HNSCC is limited to comparative dosimetric analyses and retrospective single-institution series. As a consequence, the recognized indications for the reimbursement of PT remain scarce in most countries. Nevertheless, approximately 100 PT centers are in operation worldwide, and initial experiences for HNSCC are being reported. This review aims to summarize the results of the early clinical experience with PT for HNSCC and the challenges that are currently faced.

Assessment of Proton Beam Therapy Use Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Cancer in the US, 2004-2018

IMPORTANCE

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a potentially superior technology to photon radiotherapy for tumors with complex anatomy, those surrounded by sensitive tissues, and childhood cancers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess patterns of use of PBT according to the present American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) clinical indications in the US.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Individuals newly diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2018 were selected from the National Cancer Database. Data analysis was performed from October 4, 2021, to February 22, 2022. ASTRO's Model Policies (2017) were used to classify patients into group 1, for which health insurance coverage for PBT treatment is recommended, and group 2, for which coverage is recommended only if additional requirements are met.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Use of PBT.

RESULTS

Of the 5 919 368 patients eligible to receive PBT included in the study, 3 206 902 were female (54.2%), and mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 62.6 (12.3) years. Use of PBT in the US increased from 0.4% in 2004 to 1.2% in 2018 (annual percent change [APC], 8.12%; P < .001) due to increases in group 1 from 0.4% in 2010 to 2.2% in 2018 (APC, 21.97; P < .001) and increases in group 2 from 0.03% in 2014 to 0.1% in 2018 (APC, 30.57; P < .001). From 2010 to 2018, among patients in group 2, PBT targeted to the breast increased from 0.0% to 0.9% (APC, 51.95%), and PBT targeted to the lung increased from 0.1% to 0.7% (APC, 28.06%) (P < .001 for both). Use of PBT targeted to the prostate decreased from 1.4% in 2011 to 0.8% in 2014 (APC, -16.48%; P = .03) then increased to 1.3% in 2018 (APC, 12.45; P < .001). Most patients in group 1 treated with PBT had private insurance coverage in 2018 (1039 [55.4%]); Medicare was the most common insurance type among those in group 2 (1973 [52.5%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study show an increase in the use of PBT in the US between 2004 to 2018; prostate was the only cancer site for which PBT use decreased temporarily between 2011 and 2014, increasing again between 2014 and 2018. These findings may be especially relevant for Medicare radiation oncology coverage policies.

Current practice in proton therapy delivery in adult cancer patients across Europe

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT.

RESULTS

Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n = 19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%).

CONCLUSION

Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT.

Master Protocol Trial Design for Efficient and Rational Evaluation of Novel Therapeutic Oncology Devices

Historically, the gold standard for evaluation of cancer therapeutics, including medical devices, has been the randomized clinical trial. Although high-quality clinical data are essential for safe and judicious use of therapeutic oncology devices, class II devices require only preclinical data for US Food and Drug Administration approval and are often not rigorously evaluated prior to widespread uptake. Herein, we review master protocol design in medical oncology and its application to therapeutic oncology devices, using examples from radiation oncology. Unique challenges of clinical testing of radiation oncology devices (RODs) include patient and treatment heterogeneity, lack of funding for trials by industry and health-care payers, and operator dependence. To address these challenges, we propose the use of master protocols to optimize regulatory, financial, administrative, quality assurance, and statistical efficiency of trials evaluating RODs. These device-specific master protocols can be extrapolated to other devices and encompass multiple substudies with the same design, statistical considerations, logistics, and infrastructure. As a practical example, we outline our phase I and II master protocol trial of stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging–guided adaptive radiotherapy, which to the best of our knowledge is the first master protocol trial to test a ROD. Development of more efficient clinical trials is needed to promote thorough evaluation of therapeutic oncology devices, including RODs, in a resource-limited environment, allowing more practical and rapid identification of the most valuable advances in our field.

Three-Year Results of a Prospective Statewide Insurance Coverage Pilot for Proton Therapy: Stakeholder Collaboration Improves Patient Access to Care

PURPOSE

Proton therapy is increasingly prescribed, given its potential to improve outcomes; however, prior authorization remains a barrier to access and is associated with frequent denials and treatment delays. We sought to determine whether appropriate access to proton therapy could ensure timely care without overuse or increased costs.

METHODS

Our large academic cancer center collaborated with a statewide self-funded employer (n = 186,000 enrollees) on an insurance coverage pilot, incorporating a value-based analysis and ensuring preauthorization for appropriate indications. Coverage was ensured for prospective trials and five evidence-supported anatomic sites. Enrollment initiated in 2016 and continued for 3 years. Primary end points were use, authorization time, and cost of care, with case-matched comparison of total charges at 1 month pretreatment through 6 months posttreatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were approved over 3 years, with only 22 actually receiving proton therapy, versus a predicted use by 120 patients (P < .01). Median follow-up was 20.1 months, and average authorization time decreased from 17 days to < 1 day (P < .01), significantly enhancing patient access. During this time, 25 patients who met pilot eligibility were instead treated with photons; and 17 patients with > 6 months of follow-up were case matched by treatment site to 17 patients receiving proton therapy, with no significant differences in sex, age, performance status, stage, histology, indication, prescribed fractions, or chemotherapy. Total medical costs (including radiation therapy [RT] and non-RT charges) for patients treated with PBT were lower than expected (a cost increase initially was expected), with no significant difference in total average charges (P = .82), in the context of overall ancillary care use.

CONCLUSION

This coverage pilot demonstrated that appropriate access to proton therapy does not necessitate overuse or significantly increase comprehensive medical costs. Objective evidence-based coverage polices ensure appropriate patient selection. Stakeholder collaboration can streamline patient access while reducing administrative burden.

Commercial Insurance Coverage of Advanced Radiation Therapy Techniques Compared With American Society for Radiation Oncology Model Policies

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare and contrast the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) model policies (MPs) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR), and proton beam therapy (PBT) with the coverage policies constructed by 5 of the largest publicly available commercial insurers throughout the United States (ie, Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana, and United Healthcare).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Appropriate indications for IMRT, SRS, SABR, and PBT by disease site (and particular clinical setting thereof) were extracted from the most recently published ASTRO MPs and published coverage policies (2019 editions) of the 5 carriers. After tabulation, concordance between ASTRO MPs and insurance policies were calculated for each modality.

RESULTS

All 5 insurer policies supported IMRT for neoplasms of the central nervous system, head/neck, hepatopancreaticobiliary, anal, and prostate cancers. The least covered diseases were retroperitoneal tumors (n = 0 carriers) and bladder cancer (n = 1). For SRS, all carriers covered benign brain tumors, brain metastases, arteriovenous malformations, and trigeminal neuralgia. None of the insurance carriers covered SRS for medically refractory epilepsy. For SABR, primary liver, lung, and low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were covered by all insurers, and none allowed SABR for primary biliary neoplasms. Only one insurance carrier each covered SABR for primary/metastatic adrenal disease and primary renal cancer. All carriers approved PBT for ocular melanoma, skull base tumors, and pediatric malignancies. The ASTRO MPs listed 4 PBT scenarios (ie, spinal disease, retroperitoneal sarcoma, head/neck neoplasms, and patients with genetic radiosensitivity syndromes) not covered by any insurer. Concordance between insurance carriers and ASTRO MPs was 67.8% for IMRT, 72.0% for SRS, 58.4% for SABR, and 41.8% for PBT (P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Coverage guidelines for IMRT, SRS, SABR, and PBT vary across 5 major insurance providers and may be substantially discordant compared with ASTRO coverage guidelines. There remain several specific areas where ongoing and future dialogues between ASTRO members, payers, and policymakers remain essential.

Proton therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Radiation therapy is an essential component of treatment for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but can be technically challenging because of the proximity of lung tumors to nearby critical organs or structures. The most effective strategy for reducing radiation-induced toxicity is to reduce unnecessary exposure of normal tissues by using advanced technology; examples from photon (X-ray) therapy have included three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy versus its predecessor, two-dimensional radiation therapy, and intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy versus its predecessor, three-dimensional conformal therapy. Using particle-beam therapy rather than photons offers the potential for further advantages because of the unique depth-dose characteristics of the particles, which can be exploited to allow still higher dose escalation to tumors with greater sparing of normal tissues, with the ultimate goal of improving local tumor control and survival while preserving quality of life by reducing treatment-related toxicity. However, the costs associated with particle therapy with protons are considerably higher than the current state of the art in photon technology, and evidence of clinical benefit from protons is increasingly being demanded to justify the higher financial burden on the healthcare system. Some such evidence is available from preclinical studies, from retrospective, single-institution clinical series, from analyses of national databases, and from single-arm prospective studies in addition to several ongoing randomized comparative trials. This review summarizes the rationale for and challenges of using proton therapy to treat thoracic cancers, reviews the current clinical experience, and suggests topics for future research.

Insurance Approval for Proton Beam Therapy and its Impact on Delays in Treatment

PURPOSE

Prior authorization (PA) has been widely implemented for proton beam therapy (PBT). We sought to determine the association between PA determination and patient characteristics, practice guidelines, and potential treatment delays.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A single-institution retrospective analysis was performed of all patients considered for PBT between 2015 and 2018 at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Differences in treatment start times and denial rates over time were compared, and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of initial denial.

RESULTS

A total of 444 patients were considered for PBT, including 396 adult and 48 pediatric patients. The American Society for Radiation Oncology model policy supported PBT coverage for 77% of the cohort. Of adult patients requiring PA, 64% were initially denied and 32% remained denied after appeal. In patients considered for reirradiation or randomized phase 3 trial enrollment, initial denial rates were 57% and 64%, respectively. Insurance coverage was not related to diagnosis, reirradiation, trial enrollment, or the American Society for Radiation Oncology model policy guidelines, but it was related to insurance category on multivariable analysis (P < .001). Over a 3-year timespan, initial denial rates increased from 55% to 74% (P = .034). PA delayed treatment start by an average of 3 weeks (and up to 4 months) for those requiring appeal (P < .001) and resulted in 19% of denied patients abandoning radiation treatment altogether. Of pediatric patients, 9% were initially denied, all of whom were approved after appeal, and PA requirement did not delay treatment start (P = .47).

CONCLUSIONS

PA requirements in adults represent a significant burden in initiating PBT and cause significant delays in patient care. Insurance approval is arbitrary and has become more restrictive over time, discordant with national clinical practice guidelines. Payors and providers should seek to streamline coverage policies in alignment with established guidelines to ensure appropriate and timely patient care.

Proton versus photon-based radiation therapy for prostate cancer: emerging evidence and considerations in the era of value-based cancer care

BACKGROUND

Advances in radiation technology have transformed treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer. The evolution of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have allowed physicians to spare surrounding normal organs and reduce adverse effects. The introduction of proton beam technology and its physical advantage of depositing its energy in tissue at the end-of-range maximum may potentially spare critical organs such as the bladder and rectum in prostate cancer patients. Data thus far are limited to large, observational studies that have not yet demonstrated a definite benefit of protons over conventional treatment with IMRT. The cost of proton beam treatment adds to the controversy within the field.

METHODS

We performed an extensive literature review for all proton treatment-related prostate cancer studies. We discuss the history of proton beam technology, as well as its role in the treatment of prostate cancer, associated controversies, novel technology trends, a discussion of cost-effectiveness, and an overview of the ongoing modern large prospective studies that aim to resolve the debate between protons and photons for prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Present data have demonstrated that proton beam therapy is safe and effective compared with the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. While dosimetric studies suggest lower whole-body radiation dose and a theoretically higher relative biological effectiveness in prostate cancer compared with photons, no studies have demonstrated a clear benefit with protons.

CONCLUSIONS

Evolving trends in proton treatment delivery and proton center business models are helping to reduce costs. Introduction of existing technology into proton delivery allows further control of organ motion and addressing organs-at-risk. Finally, the much-awaited contemporary studies comparing photon with proton-based treatments, with primary endpoints of patient-reported quality-of-life, will help us understand the differences between proton and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era.

National practice patterns of proton versus photon therapy in the treatment of adult patients with primary brain tumors in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To examine patterns of care associated with the administration of proton versus photon therapy for adult patients with primary brain tumors in a large national cohort from the United States.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for newly diagnosed primary brain tumors (2004-2014) in adult patients aged 18 and older receiving proton or photon radiotherapy. Clinical features, patient demographics and treatment parameters were extracted. Differences between groups were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 73,073 patients were analyzed (n = 72,635 [99.4%] photon therapy, n = 438 [0.6%] proton therapy). On multivariable analysis of photon versus proton therapy, several factors predicted for receipt of proton therapy, including younger age (p = .041), highest income quartile (p = .007), treatment at academic institutions (p < .001), in regional facilities outside the Midwest/South (p < .001), diagnosis in more recent years (p = .003), fewer comorbidities (p < .001) and non-glioblastoma histology (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There are several significant socioeconomic variables that influence receipt of proton therapy for primary brain tumors. Although not implying causation, the socioeconomic findings discovered herein should be taken into account when delivering cancer care to all patients.

Proton therapy for prostate cancer: A review of the rationale, evidence, and current state

Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have many curative treatment options including several different radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton radiation is one such radiation treatment modality and, due to its unique physical properties, offers the appealing potential of reduced side effects without sacrificing cancer control. In this review, we examine the intriguing dosimetric rationale and theoretical benefit of proton radiation for prostate cancer and highlight the results of preclinical modeling studies. We then discuss the current state of the clinical evidence for proton efficacy and toxicity, derived from both large claim-based datasets and prospective patient-reported data. The result is that the data are mixed, and clinical equipoise persists in this area. We place these studies into context by summarizing the economics of proton therapy and the changing practice patterns of prostate proton irradiation. Finally, we await the results of a large prospective randomized clinical trial currently accruing and also a large prospective pragmatic comparative study which will provide more rigorous evidence regarding the clinical and comparative effectiveness of proton therapy for prostate cancer.

Online advertising and marketing claims by providers of proton beam therapy: are they guideline-based?

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients frequently search the Internet for treatment options, and hospital websites are seen as reliable sources of knowledge. Guidelines support the use of proton radiotherapy in specific disease sites or on clinical trials. This study aims to evaluate direct-to-consumer advertising content and claims made by proton therapy centre (PTC) websites worldwide.

METHODS

Operational PTC websites in English were identified through the Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group website. Data abstraction of website content was performed independently by two investigators. Eight international guidelines were consulted to determine guideline-based indications for proton radiotherapy. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine the characteristics of PTC websites that indicated proton radiotherapy offered greater disease control or cure rates.

RESULTS

Forty-eight PTCs with 46 English websites were identified. 60·9% of PTC websites claimed proton therapy provided improved disease control or cure. U.S. websites listed more indications than international websites (15·5 ± 5·4 vs. 10·4 ± 5·8, p = 0·004). The most common disease sites advertised were prostate (87·0%), head and neck (87·0%) and pediatrics (82·6%), all of which were indicated in least one international guideline. Several disease sites advertised were not present in any consensus guidelines, including pancreatobiliary (52·2%), breast (50·0%), and esophageal (43·5%) cancers. Multivariate analysis found increasing number of disease sites and claiming their centre was a local or regional leader in proton radiotherapy was associated with indicating proton radiotherapy offers greater disease control or cure.

CONCLUSIONS

Information from PTC websites often differs from recommendations found in international consensus guidelines. As online marketing information may have significant influence on patient decision-making, alignment of such information with accepted guidelines and consensus opinion should be adopted by PTC providers.

Promoting the Appropriate Use of Advanced Radiation Technologies in Oncology: Summary of a National Cancer Policy Forum Workshop

PURPOSE

Leaders in the oncology community are sounding a clarion call to promote "value" in cancer care decisions. Value in cancer care considers the clinical effectiveness, along with the costs, when selecting a treatment. To discuss possible solutions to the current obstacles to achieving value in the use of advanced technologies in oncology, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop, "Appropriate Use of Advanced Technologies for Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Oncology" in July 2015. The present report summarizes the discussions related to radiation oncology.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The workshop convened stakeholders, including oncologists, researchers, payers, policymakers, and patients. Speakers presented on key themes, including the rationale for a value discussion on advanced technology use in radiation oncology, the generation of scientific evidence for value of advanced radiation technologies, the effect of both scientific evidence and "marketplace" (or economic) factors on the adoption of technologies, and newer approaches to improving value in the practice of radiation oncology. The presentations were followed by a panel discussion with dialogue among the stakeholders.

RESULTS

Challenges to generating evidence for the value of advanced technologies include obtaining contemporary, prospective, randomized, and representative comparative effectiveness data. Proposed solutions include the use of prospective registry data; integrating radiation oncology treatment, outcomes, and quality benchmark data; and encouraging insurance coverage with evidence development. Challenges to improving value in practice include the slow adoption of higher value and the de-adoption of lower value treatments. The proposed solutions focused on engaging stakeholders in iterative, collaborative, and evidence-based efforts to define value and promote change in radiation oncology practice. Recent examples of ongoing or successful responses to the discussed challenges were provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Discussions of "value" have increased as a priority in the radiation oncology community. Practitioners in the radiation oncology community can play a critical role in promoting a value-oriented framework to approach radiation oncology treatment.