Randomized Trials of Proton Therapy: Why They Are at Risk, Proposed Solutions, and Implications for Evaluating Advanced Technologies to Diagnose and Treat Cancer

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.

Updated Analysis of Comparative Toxicity of Proton and Photon Radiation for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Previous comparative effectiveness studies have not demonstrated a benefit of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. An updated comparison of GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity is needed.

METHODS

We investigated the SEER-Medicare linked database, identifying patients with localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Procedure and diagnosis codes indicative of treatment-related toxicity were identified. As a sensitivity analysis, we also identified toxicity based only on procedure codes. Patients who underwent IMRT and PBT were matched 2:1 on the basis of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. We then compared GI and GU toxicity at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment.

RESULTS

The final sample included 772 PBT patients matched to 1,544 IMRT patients. The frequency of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.5% versus 2.5% at 6 months (P = .18), 9.5% versus 10.2% at 12 months (P = .18), and 20.5% versus 23.4% at 24 months (P = .11). The frequency of only procedure codes indicative of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was too low to be reported and not significantly different. The frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 6.8% versus 5.7% (P = .30), 14.3% versus 12.2% (P = .13), and 28.2% versus 25.8% (P = .21) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. When looking only at procedure codes, the frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT was 1.0% at 6 months, whereas it was too infrequent to report for PBT (P = .64). GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.3% versus 2.1% (P = .10), and 8.7% versus 6.7% (P = .10) at 12 and 24 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this observational study, there were no statistically significant differences between PBT and IMRT in terms of GI or GU toxicity.

Evolving Role of Proton Radiation Therapy in Clinical Practice

With the expansion of proton radiation therapy centers across the United States and a gradually expanding body of academic evidence supporting its use, more patients are receiving-and asking about-proton therapy than ever before. Here, we outline, for nonradiation oncologists, the theoretical benefits of proton therapy, the clinical evidence to date, the controversies affecting utilization, and the numerous randomized trials currently in progress. We also discuss the challenges of researching and delivering proton therapy, including the cost of constructing and maintaining centers, barriers with insurance approval, clinical situations in which proton therapy may be approached with caution, and the issue of equitable access for all patients. The purpose of this review is to assist practicing oncologists in understanding the evolving role of proton therapy and to help nonradiation oncologists guide patients regarding this technology.

Insurance Denial of Care for Randomized Controlled Trial-Eligible Patients: Incidence and Success Rate of Peer-To-Peer Authorization in Allowing Patients to Remain Trial-Eligible

INTRODUCTION

Insurance denials for clinical trials serve as a pertinent barrier for patients to remain trial-eligible, thus hindering the development of therapies and the overall advancement of health care. We present results from an ongoing oncology randomized clinical trial regarding insurance denials and peer-to-peer authorization (P2PA) success rate in allowing patients to remain trial-eligible.

METHODS

The ongoing Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms Phase II trial randomizes spine cancer patients to treatment with spine radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Trial-eligible patients during the first 3 months of enrollment are examined to determine whether the option of SBRT was denied by their insurance. Advocacy for overcoming SBRT denial in P2PA centered on SBRT being recommended as a preferred treatment modality in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and the recent level I evidence demonstrating the advantages of SBRT over EBRT for symptomatic spine cancer.

RESULTS

Of 15 trial-eligible patients, 3 (20%) experienced insurance denials for SBRT. P2PA resulted in the reversal of denials in all 3 patients, allowing each to remain trial-eligible for randomization between SBRT and cEBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a clinical oncologic treatment modality for which recent Level 1 evidence is available, the insurance denial rate was 20%. A vigilant P2PA strategy focusing on highlighting National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the supporting Level 1 evidence resulted in a very high rate of reversing initial denial.

Minimum data elements for the Australian Particle Therapy Clinical Quality Registry

INTRODUCTION

Construction of the first Australian particle therapy (PT) centre is underway. Establishment of a national registry, to be known as the Australian Particle Therapy Clinical Quality Registry (ASPIRE), has been identified as a mandatory requirement for PT treatment to be reimbursed by the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule. This study aimed to determine a consensus set of Minimum Data Elements (MDEs) for ASPIRE.

METHODS

A modified Delphi and expert consensus process was completed. Stage 1 compiled currently operational English-language international PT registries. Stage 2 listed the MDEs included in each of these four registries. Those included in three or four registries were automatically included as a potential MDE for ASPIRE. Stage 3 interrogated the remaining data items, and involved three rounds - an online survey to a panel of experts, followed by a live poll session of PT-interested participants, and finally a virtual discussion forum of the original expert panel.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-three different MDEs were identified across the four international registries. The multi-staged Delphi and expert consensus process resulted in a total of 27 essential MDEs for ASPIRE; 14 patient factors, four tumour factors and nine treatment factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The MDEs provide the core mandatory data items for the national PT registry. Registry data collection for PT is paramount in the ongoing global effort to accumulate more robust clinical evidence regarding PT patient and tumour outcomes, quantifying the magnitude of clinical benefit and justifying the relatively higher costs of PT investment.

Assessing Equity of Access to Proton Beam Therapy: A Literature Review

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is one of the most advanced radiotherapy technologies, with growing evidence to support its use in specific clinical scenarios and exponential growth of demand and capacity worldwide over the past few decades. However, geographical inequalities persist in the distribution of PBT centres, which translate into variations in access and use of this technology. The aim of this work was to look at the factors that contribute to these inequalities, to help raise awareness among stakeholders, governments and policy makers. A literature search was conducted using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) criteria. The same search strategy was run in Embase and Medline and identified 242 records, which were screened for manual review. Of these, 24 were deemed relevant and were included in this analysis. Most of the 24 publications included in this review originated from the USA (22/24) and involved paediatric patients, teenagers and young adults (61% for children and/or teenagers and young adults versus 39% for adults). The most reported indicator of disparity was socioeconomic status (16/24), followed by geographical location (13/24). All the studies evaluated in this review showed disparities in the access to PBT. As paediatric patients make up a significant proportion of the PBT-eligible patients, equity of access to PBT also raises ethical considerations. Therefore, further research is needed into the equity of access to PBT to reduce the care gap.

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.

Outcomes of Patients Treated in the UK Proton Overseas Programme: Non-central Nervous System Group

AIMS

The UK Proton Overseas Programme (POP) was launched in 2008. The Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit (PCOU) warehouses a centralised registry for collection, curation and analysis of all outcomes data for all National Health Service-funded UK patients referred and treated abroad with proton beam therapy (PBT) via the POP. Outcomes are reported and analysed here for patients diagnosed with non-central nervous system tumours treated from 2008 to September 2020 via the POP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All non-central nervous system tumour files for treatments as of 30 September 2020 were interrogated for follow-up information, and type (following CTCAE v4) and time of onset of any late (>90 days post-PBT completion) grade 3-5 toxicities.

RESULTS

Four hundred and ninety-five patients were analysed. The median follow-up was 2.1 years (0-9.3 years). The median age was 11 years (0-69 years). 70.3% of patients were paediatric (<16 years). Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) and Ewing sarcoma were the most common diagnoses (42.6% and 34.1%). 51.3% of treated patients were for head and neck (H&N) tumours. At last known follow-up, 86.1% of all patients were alive, with a 2-year survival rate of 88.3% and 2-year local control of 90.3%. Mortality and local control were worse for adults (≥25 years) than for the younger groups. The grade 3 toxicity rate was 12.6%, with a median onset of 2.3 years. Most were in the H&N region in paediatric patients with RMS. Cataracts (30.5%) were the most common, then musculoskeletal deformity (10.1%) and premature menopause (10.1%). Three paediatric patients (1-3 years at treatment) experienced secondary malignancy. Seven grade 4 toxicities occurred (1.6%), all in the H&N region and most in paediatric patients with RMS. Six related to eyes (cataracts, retinopathy, scleral disorder) or ears (hearing impairment).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the largest to date for RMS and Ewing sarcoma, undergoing multimodality therapy including PBT. It demonstrates good local control, survival and acceptable toxicity rates.

Serial Measurement of Global Longitudinal Strain Among Women With Breast Cancer Treated With Proton Radiation Therapy: A Prospective Trial for 70 Patients

PURPOSE

Conventional photon radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer is associated with a reduction in global longitudinal strain (GLS) and an increase in troponin, N-terminal pro hormone B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and incident heart failure. The cardiac radiation exposure with proton-RT is much reduced and thus may be associated with less cardiotoxicity. The objective was to test the effect of proton-RT on GLS, troponin, and NT-proBNP.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a prospective, observational, single-center study of 70 women being treated with proton-RT for breast cancer. Serial measurements of GLS, high-sensitivity troponin I, and NT-proBNP were performed at prespecified intervals (before proton-RT, 4 weeks after completion of proton-RT, and again at 2 months after proton-RT).

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 46 ± 11 years, and the mean body mass index was 25.6 ± 5.2 kg/m²; 32% of patients had hypertension, and the mean radiation doses to the heart and the left ventricle (LV) were 0.44 Gy and 0.12 Gy, respectively. There was no change in left ventricular ejection fraction (65 ± 5 vs 66 ± 5 vs 64 ± 4%; P = .15), global GLS (-21.7 ± 2.7 vs -22.7 ± 2.3 vs -22.8 ± 2.1%; P = .24), or segmental GLS from before to after proton-RT. Similarly, there was no change in either high-sensitivity troponin or NT-proBNP with proton-RT. However, in a post hoc subset analysis, women with hypertension had a greater decrease in GLS after proton-RT compared with women without hypertension (-21.3 ± 3.5 vs -24.0 ± 2.4%; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

Proton-RT did not affect LV function and was not associated with an increase in biomarkers. These data support the potential cardiac benefits of proton-RT compared with conventional RT.

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.

Multi-institutional Comparison of Intensity Modulated Photon Versus Proton Radiation Therapy in the Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Anus

Purpose

Concurrent chemoradiation therapy is a curative treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, but patients can suffer from significant treatment-related toxicities. This study was undertaken to determine whether intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is associated with less acute toxicity than intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using photons.

Materials and Methods

We performed a multi-institutional retrospective study comparing toxicity and oncologic outcomes of IMRT versus IMPT. Patients with stage I-IV (for positive infrarenal para-aortic or common iliac nodes only) squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer's AJCC Staging Manual, eighth edition, were included. Patients with nonsquamous histology or mixed IMPT and IMRT treatment courses were excluded. Acute nonhematologic toxicities, per the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4, were recorded prospectively at all sites. Acute and late toxicities, dose metrics, and oncologic outcomes were compared between IMRT and IMPT using univariable and multivariable statistical methods. To improve the robustness of our analysis, we also analyzed the data using propensity score weighting methods.

Results

A total of 208 patients were treated with either IMPT (58 patients) or IMRT (150 patients). Of the 208 total patients, 13% had stage I disease, 36% stage II, 50% stage III, and 1% stage IV. IMPT reduced the volume of normal tissue receiving low-dose radiation but not high-dose radiation to bladder and bowel. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in overall grade 3 or greater acute toxicity (IMRT, 68%; IMPT, 67%; P = .96) or 2-year overall grade 3 or greater late toxicity (IMRT, 3.5%; IMPT, 1.8%; P = .88). There was no significant difference in 2-year progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.0).

Conclusions

Despite reducing the volume of normal tissue receiving low-dose radiation, IMPT was not associated with decreased grade 3 or greater acute toxicity as measured by CTCAE. Additional follow-up is needed to assess whether important differences arise in late toxicities and if further prospective evaluation is warranted.

A Planning Comparison of IMRT vs. Pencil Beam Scanning for Deep Inspiration Breath Hold Lung Cancers

Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) has dosimetric advantages for lung cancer patients treated with external beam therapy, but is difficult for many patients to perform. Proton therapy permits sparing of the downstream organs at risk (OAR). We compared conventionally fractionated proton (p) and photon(x) plans on both free breathing (FB) and DIBH planning CTs to determine the effect of DIBH with proton therapy. We evaluated 24 plans from 6 lung cancer patients treated with photon DIBH on a prospective protocol. All patients were re-planned using pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. New plans were generated for FB datasets with both modalities. All plans were renormalized to 60 Gy. We evaluated dosimetric parameters for heart, lung and esophagus. We also compared FB_p to DIBH_x parameters to quantify how FB_p plans compare to DIBH_x plans. Significant differences were found for lung metrics V20 and mean lung dose between FB and DIBH plans regardless of treatment modality. Furthermore, lung metrics for FB_p were comparable or superior to DIBH_x, suggesting that FB protons may be a viable alternative for those patients that cannot perform DIBH with IMRT. The heart dose metrics were significantly different for the 5 out of 6 patients where the PTV overlapped the heart as DIBH moved heart out of the high dose volume. Heart dose metrics were further reduced by proton therapy. DIBH offers similar relative advantages for lung sparing for PBS as it does for IMRT but the magnitude of the DIBH related gains in OAR sparing were smaller for PBS than IMRT. FB_p plans offer similar or better lung and heart sparing compared to DIBH_x plans. For IMRT patients who have difficulty performing DIBH, FB protons may offer an alternative.

Current Situation of Proton Therapy for Hodgkin Lymphoma: From Expectations to Evidence

Consolidative radiation therapy (RT) is of prime importance for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) management since it significantly increases progression-free survival (PFS). Nevertheless, first-generation techniques, relying on large irradiation fields, delivered significant radiation doses to critical organs-at-risk (OARs, such as the heart, to the lung or the breasts) when treating mediastinal HL; consequently, secondary cancers, and cardiac and lung toxicity were substantially increased. Fortunately, HL RT has drastically evolved and, nowadays, state-of-the-art RT techniques efficiently spare critical organs-at-risks without altering local control or overall survival. Recently, proton therapy has been evaluated for mediastinal HL treatment, due to its possibility to significantly reduce integral dose to OARs, which is expected to limit second neoplasm risk and reduce late toxicity. Nevertheless, clinical experience for this recent technique is still limited worldwide. Based on current literature, this critical review aims to examine the current practice of proton therapy for mediastinal HL irradiation.

[New indications of protontherapy for adults intracranial tumours]

Considering intracranial tumours, only few indications of protontherapy, such as chordoma, chondrosarcoma or uveal melanoma, are uniformly approved in the world. Other indications, excluding paediatric pathologies, are still debated. The aim of this article is to describe the rationale for the use of protonbeam irradiation for meningioma, pituitary adenoma, craniopharyngioma, paraganglioma, glioma, and schwannoma, and to inform the radiation oncologists if prospective studies or randomized studies are opened for inclusions. This article deals only with indications for adults.

PTCOG Head and Neck Subcommittee Consensus Guidelines on Particle Therapy for the Management of Head and Neck Tumors

Purpose

Radiation therapy is a standard modality in the treatment for cancers of the head and neck, but is associated with significant short- and long-term side effects. Proton therapy, with its unique physical characteristics, can deliver less dose to normal tissues, resulting in fewer side effects. Proton therapy is currently being used for the treatment of head and neck cancer, with increasing clinical evidence supporting its use. However, barriers to wider adoption include access, cost, and the need for higher-level evidence.

Methods

The clinical evidence for the use of proton therapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer are reviewed here, including indications, advantages, and challenges.

Results

The Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Head and Neck Subcommittee task group provides consensus guidelines for the use of proton therapy for head and neck cancer.

Conclusion

This report can be used as a guide for clinical use, to understand clinical trials, and to inform future research efforts.

Financial Toxicity in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Treated With Proton Therapy

Cancer-related financial toxicity impacts head and neck cancer patients and survivors. With increasing use of proton therapy as a curative treatment for head and neck cancer, the multifaceted financial and economic implications of proton therapy-dimensions of "financial toxicity"-need to be addressed. Herein, we identify knowledge gaps and potential solutions related to the problem of financial toxicity. To date, while cost-effectiveness analysis has been used to assess the value of proton therapy for head and neck cancer, it may not fully incorporate empiric comparisons of patients' and survivors' lost productivity and disability after treatment. A cost-of-illness framework for evaluation could address this gap, thereby more comprehensively identifying the value of proton therapy and distinctly incorporating a measurable aspect of financial toxicity in evaluation. Overall, financial toxicity burdens remain understudied in head and neck cancer patients from a patient-centered perspective. Systematic, validated, and accurate measurement of financial toxicity in patients receiving proton therapy is needed, especially relative to conventional photon-based strategies. This will enrich the evidence base for optimal selection and rationale for payer coverage of available treatment options for head and neck cancer patients. In the setting of cancer care delivery, a combination of conducting proactive screening for financial toxicity in patients selected for proton therapy, initiating early financial navigation in vulnerable patients, engaging stakeholders, improving oncology provider team cost communication, expanding policies to promote price transparency, and expanding insurance coverage for proton therapy are critical practices to mitigate financial toxicity in head and neck cancer patients.

Proton Beam Therapy for Cancer in Children and Adults: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Proton beam therapy has potential to reduce late toxicity in cancer treatment by reducing the risk of damage to surrounding healthy tissues. We conducted a health technology assessment of proton beam therapy, compared with photon therapy, for children and adults with cancer requiring radiotherapy. Our assessment included an evaluation of safety, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding the construction and use of proton beam therapy in Ontario, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to retrieve systematic reviews and selected and reported results from one review that was recent, high quality, and relevant to our research question. We complemented the chosen systematic review (published in 2019) with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding proton beam therapy in cancer patients in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of proton beam therapy, we spoke with 10 people with cancer (or their caregivers) who had either received or were considering proton beam therapy.

RESULTS

We included one systematic review of the clinical evidence reporting on 215 publications on proton beam therapy in children and adults across 19 tumour categories/conditions. Compared with photon therapy, proton beam therapy may result in fewer adverse events but similar overall survival and progression-free survival in children with brain tumours (GRADE: Low), adults with esophageal cancer (GRADE: Low to Very low), head and neck cancer (GRADE: Low to Very low), and prostate cancer (GRADE: Low). Proton beam therapy may result in similar adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival in adults with brain tumours (GRADE: Low), breast cancer (GRADE: Low), gastrointestinal cancer (GRADE: Very low), liver cancer (GRADE: Moderate to Very low), lung cancer (GRADE: Moderate to Very low), and ocular tumours (GRADE: Low). There was insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of proton beam therapy in other pediatric tumours, as well as bladder cancer, bone cancer, lymphoma, and benign tumours in adults.The economic evidence suggests that proton beam therapy may be cost-effective in pediatric populations with medulloblastoma; however, studies were based on limited clinical evidence. In other indications, the cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy is unclear. The 5-year budget impact of funding a four-room proton beam therapy centre in Ontario would be $124.8 million, resulting in a cost per patient of $48,217, including both capital investment and operational costs, compared to the current average cost of $326,800 to send patients out of country. Funding a one-room proton beam therapy centre that would treat selected Ontario patients and patients from other Canadian provinces would have a lower budget impact of $15.2 million over the next 5 years. If we assume building proton beam therapy centres would substitute for new photon therapy centres, then the 5-year budget impact could be further reduced to approximately $13 million (one room) or $94.8 million (four rooms). The people we interviewed who had received proton beam therapy reported positive responses to the treatment. They chose to have proton beam therapy because they believed it to be safer and to have fewer long-term side effects than photon therapy. However, accessing proton beam therapy in the United States was often challenging, with logistical and emotional burdens. Patients and families valued the opportunity to receive effective treatment close to family and other emotional supports.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton beam therapy may be as effective as conventional radiation therapy, and it may cause fewer side effects, especially for children with brain tumours and for adults with certain types of cancer. Based on published economic evidence, proton beam therapy is likely cost-effective compared with photon therapy in children with medulloblastoma, but cost-effectiveness is unclear in children and adults with other clinical indications. We estimate that publicly funding a proton beam therapy centre in Ontario would result in additional costs of $124.8 million over the next 5 years, but with a six- to seven-fold reduction in the per-patient cost compared with current spending. People with cancer and caregivers with whom we spoke were generally supportive of having proton beam therapy available in Ontario.

Sensible Introduction of MR-Guided Radiotherapy: A Warm Plea for the RCT

Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is the newest face of technology within a field long-characterized by continual technologic advance. MRgRT may offer improvement in the therapeutic index of radiation by offering novel planning types, like online adaptation, and improved image guidance, but there is a paucity of randomized data or ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to demonstrate clinical gains. Strong clinical evidence is needed to confirm the theoretical advantages of MRgRT and for the rapid dissemination of (and reimbursement for) appropriate use. Although some future evidence for MRgRT may come from large registries and non-randomized studies, RCTs should make up the core of this future data, and should be undertaken with thoughtful preconception, endpoints that incorporate patient-reported outcomes, and warm collaboration across existing MRgRT platforms. The advance and future success of MRgRT hinges on collaborative pursuit of the RCT.

Comparative Effectiveness of Proton vs Photon Therapy as Part of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cancer

Importance

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard-of-care curative treatment for many cancers but is associated with substantial morbidity. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy administered with proton therapy might reduce toxicity and achieve comparable cancer control outcomes compared with conventional photon radiotherapy by reducing the radiation dose to normal tissues.

Objective

To assess whether proton therapy in the setting of concurrent chemoradiotherapy is associated with fewer 90-day unplanned hospitalizations (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4 [CTCAEv4], grade ≥3) or other adverse events and similar disease-free and overall survival compared with concurrent photon therapy and chemoradiotherapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, nonrandomized comparative effectiveness study included 1483 adult patients with nonmetastatic, locally advanced cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy with curative intent from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2016, at a large academic health system. Three hundred ninety-one patients received proton therapy and 1092, photon therapy. Data were analyzed from October 15, 2018, through February 1, 2019.

Interventions

Proton vs photon chemoradiotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was 90-day adverse events associated with unplanned hospitalizations (CTCAEv4 grade ≥3). Secondary end points included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status decline during treatment, 90-day adverse events of at least CTCAEv4 grade 2 that limit instrumental activities of daily living, and disease-free and overall survival. Data on adverse events and survival were gathered prospectively. Modified Poisson regression models with inverse propensity score weighting were used to model adverse event outcomes, and Cox proportional hazards regression models with weighting were used for survival outcomes. Propensity scores were estimated using an ensemble machine-learning approach.

Results

Among the 1483 patients included in the analysis (935 men [63.0%]; median age, 62 [range, 18-93] years), those receiving proton therapy were significantly older (median age, 66 [range, 18-93] vs 61 [range, 19-91] years; P < .01), had less favorable Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (median, 3.0 vs 2.0; P < .01), and had lower integral radiation dose to tissues outside the target (mean [SD] volume, 14.1 [6.4] vs 19.1 [10.6] cGy/cc × 107; P < .01). Baseline grade ≥2 toxicity (22% vs 24%; P = .37) and ECOG performance status (mean [SD], 0.62 [0.74] vs 0.68 [0.80]; P = .16) were similar between the 2 cohorts. In propensity score weighted-analyses, proton chemoradiotherapy was associated with a significantly lower relative risk of 90-day adverse events of at least grade 3 (0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002), 90-day adverse events of at least grade 2 (0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93; P = .006), and decline in performance status during treatment (0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71; P < .001). There was no difference in disease-free or overall survival.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this analysis, proton chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly reduced acute adverse events that caused unplanned hospitalizations, with similar disease-free and overall survival. Prospective trials are warranted to validate these results.

The Reality of Randomized Controlled Trials for Assessing the Benefit of Proton Therapy: Critically Examining the Intent-to-Treat Principle in the Presence of Insurance Denial

Purpose

This study hypothesized that insurance denial would lead to bias and loss of statistical power when evaluating the results from an intent-to-treat (ITT), per-protocol, and as-treated analyses using a simulated randomized clinical trial comparing proton therapy to intensity modulated radiation therapy where patients incurred increasing rates of insurance denial.

Methods and Materials

Simulations used a binary endpoint to assess differences between treatment arms after applying ITT, per-protocol, and as-treated analyses. Two scenarios were developed: 1 with clinical success independent of age and another assuming dependence on age. Insurance denial was assumed possible for patients <65 years. All scenarios considered an age distribution with mean ± standard deviation: 55 ± 15 years, rates of insurance denial ranging from 0%-40%, and a sample of N = 300 patients (150 per arm). Clinical success rates were defined as 70% for proton therapy and 50% for intensity modulated radiation therapy. The average treatment effect, bias, and power were compared after applying 5000 simulations.

Results

Increasing rates of insurance denial demonstrated inherent weaknesses among all 3 analytical approaches. With clinical success independent of age, a per-protocol analysis demonstrated the least bias and loss of power. When clinical success was dependent on age, the per-protocol and ITT analyses resulted in a similar trend with respect to bias and loss of power, with both outperforming the as-treated analysis.

Conclusions

Insurance denial leads to misclassification bias in the ITT analysis, a missing data problem in the per-protocol analysis, and covariate imbalance between treatment arms in the as-treated analysis. Moreover, insurance denial forces the critical appraisal of patient features (eg, age) affected by the denial and potentially influencing clinical success. In the presence of insurance denial, our study suggests cautious reporting of ITT and as-treated analyses, and placing primary emphasis on the results of the per-protocol analysis.

Concurrent chemo-radiotherapy with proton therapy: reduced toxicity with comparable oncological outcomes vs photon chemo-radiotherapy

Concurrent chemo-radiotherapy is a commonly employed curative treatment approach for locally advanced cancers but is associated with considerable morbidity. Chemo-radiotherapy using proton therapy may be able to reduce side effects of treatment and improve efficacy, but this remains an area of controversy and data are relatively limited. We comment on recently published studies and discuss future directions for proton therapy.

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.

Thoracic Radiation Oncology Clinical Trial Accrual and Reasons for Nonenrollment: Results of a Large, Prospective, Multiyear Analysis

PURPOSE

Clinical trials are considered the gold standard in evidence-based medicine, yet few patients with cancer ultimately enroll. Here we examine patients screened for thoracic radiation oncology clinical trials to better understand enrollment trends.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A prospective database tracking screening and enrollment for patients referred for thoracic radiation oncology consultation at our institution from 2016 to 2019 was evaluated. Proportional enrollment rates, patient and disease characteristics, self-reported socioeconomic factors, and reasons for ineligibility or nonenrollment across 17 radiation therapy trials were compared.

RESULTS

Enrollment data on 2372 patients were available for analysis. Of these patients, 40.0% (949) were deemed "not eligible" (NE) for any trial or were unwilling to be further screened. Reasons for ineligibility included stage (44%), histology (13%), radiation therapy not indicated (12%), patient decision (7%), and enrollment in a competing medical or surgical oncology trial (5%). The remaining 60.0% (1423) were "potentially eligible" (PE) for one or more trials. Most had non-small cell lung cancer (71%) or esophageal cancer (16%), and there were significantly fewer stage IV PE (29%) versus NE (49%) patients (P < .0001). Of 2372 patients, 281 (11.9%) enrolled. Notable reasons for nonenrollment were inclusion and exclusion criteria (58%), patients declining enrollment (14%), and physician decision (5%). The proportion of white patients was higher in the PE versus NE group (82.5% vs 75.8%; P < .001). Additionally, white race (87.9% vs 81.2%; P = .008), English language preference (96.4% vs 92.9%; P = .032), and non-Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (94.0% vs 90.1%; P = .042) were significantly different in enrolled versus nonenrolled PE patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 12% of patients screened for radiation therapy trials ultimately enrolled, and more than two-thirds had no trial available or were found ineligible. In addition, 19% of potential eligible patients did not enroll because the patient or physician declined. Future trials may benefit from pragmatic designs with more inclusive enrollment criteria and multidisciplinary engagement of referring providers.

Strategic Operational Redesign for Successfully Navigating Prior Authorization Barriers at a Large-Volume Proton Therapy Center

PURPOSE

Prior authorization (PA) can be a resource-intensive barrier to oncologic care. To improve patient access and reduce delays at our large, academic proton therapy center, we implemented a novel payor-focused strategy to efficiently navigate the PA process while eliminating physician burden and reducing inappropriate denials.

METHODS

In 2017, business operations were redesigned to better reflect the insurance process: (1) certified medical dosimetrists (CMDs), with their unique treatment expertise, replaced our historical PA team to function as an effective interface among physicians, patients, and payors; (2) a structured, tiered timeline was implemented to hold payors accountable to PA deadlines; and (3) our PA team provided administrative leadership with requisite insurance knowledge. PA outcomes were compared 6 months before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

After implementation of this multifaceted strategy, the median time to successful appeal (after initial denial of coverage) decreased from 30 to 18 days (P < .001), and the total number of overturned denials increased by 56%. Because of the efficiency of the CMDs, full-time equivalents on the PA team actually decreased by 44%, translating to a 34% reduction in team personnel expenses. Internal referrals increased by 29%, attributable to optimized communication and diminished administrative burden for providers. New treatment starts also increased, resulting in a 37% larger patient census on treatment.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating payor-focused strategies can improve patient access in a cost-effective manner while decreasing time and administrative burden associated with the PA process. These operational concepts can be adapted for other oncologic practice settings facing analogous PA-related obstacles.

PITChing (professional organisations, innovative trial designs and collaborative approach) for evidence generation for proton therapy

Developments in the field of proton beam therapy (PBT) have recently crossed the tipping point wherein the modality is now more versatile than ever before, with possibilities and likely indications expanding rapidly.

However the pace of evidence generation lags behind the developments in the field.

Generating quality evidence has its own set of challenges owing to complexities of conducting randomized controlled trials, which are the hallmark of level 1 evidence generation.

Here we discuss various challenges to clinical evidence generation in PBT and have suggested certain solutions including collaborative approaches and alternative study designs to mitigate these challenges.

Particle therapy toxicity outcomes: A systematic review

Owing to its physical properties, particle therapy (PT), including proton beam therapy (PBT) and carbon ion therapy (CIT), can enhance the therapeutic ratio in radiation therapy. The major factor driving PT implementation is the reduction in exit and integral dose compared to photon plans, which is expected to translate to reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. This study extends the findings from a recent systematic review by the current authors which concentrated on tumour outcomes for PT, to now examine toxicity as a separate focus. Together, these reviews provide a comprehensive collation of the evidence relating to PT outcomes in clinical practice. Three major databases were searched by two independent researchers, and evidence quality was classified according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence hierarchy. One hundred and seventy-nine studies were included. Most demonstrated acceptable and favourable toxicity results. Comparative evidence reported reduced morbidities and improvement in quality of life in head and neck, paediatrics, sarcomas, adult central nervous system, gastrointestinal, ocular and prostate cancers compared to photon radiotherapy. This suggestion for reduced morbidity must be counterbalanced by the overall low quality of evidence. A concerted effort in the design of appropriate comparative clinical trials is needed which takes into account integration of PT's pace of technological advancements, including evolving delivery techniques, image guidance availability and sophistication of planning algorithms.

Particle therapy tumour outcomes: An updated systematic review

Particle therapy (PT) offers the potential for reduced normal tissue damage as well as escalation of target dose, thereby enhancing the therapeutic ratio in radiation therapy. Reflecting the building momentum of PT use worldwide, construction has recently commenced for The Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy and Research in Adelaide - the first PT centre in Australia. This systematic review aims to update the clinical evidence base for PT, both proton beam and carbon ion therapy. The purpose is to inform clinical decision-making for referral of patients to PT centres in Australia as they become operational and overseas in the interim. Three major databases were searched by two independent researchers, and evidence quality was classified according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence hierarchy. One hundred and thirty-six studies were included, two-thirds related to proton beam therapy alone. PT at the very least provides equivalent tumour outcomes compared to photon controls with the possibility of improved control in the case of carbon ion therapy. There is suggestion of reduced morbidities in a range of tumour sites, supporting the predictions from dosimetric modelling and the wide international acceptance of PT for specific indications based on this. Though promising, this needs to be counterbalanced by the overall low quality of evidence found, with 90% of studies of level IV (case series) evidence. Prospective comparative clinical trials, supplemented by database-derived outcome information, preferably conducted within international and national networks, are strongly recommended as PT is introduced into Australasia.

Proton beam therapy utilization in adults with primary brain tumors in the United States

The utilization of proton beam therapy (PBT) as the primary treatment of adults with primary brain tumors (APBT) was evaluated through query of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between the years 2004 and 2015. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology code for each patient was stratified into six histology categories; high-grade gliomas, medulloblastomas, ependymomas, other gliomas, other malignant tumors, or other benign intracranial tumors. Demographics of the treatment population were also analyzed. A total of 1,296 patients received PBT during the 11-year interval for treatment of their primary brain tumor. High-grade glioma, medulloblastoma, ependymoma, other glioma, other malignant, and other benign intracranial histologies made up 39%, 20%, 13%, 12%, 13%, and 2% of the cohort, respectively. The number of patients treated per year increased from 34 to 300 in years 2004 to 2015. Histologies treated with PBT varied over the 11-year interval with high-grade gliomas comprising 75% and 45% at years 2004 and 2015, respectively. The majority of the patient population was 18-29 years of age (59%), Caucasian race (73%), had median reported income of over $63,000 (46%), were privately insured (68%), and were treated at an academic institution (70%). This study characterizes trends of malignant and benign APBT histologies treated with PBT. Our data from 2004 through 2015 illustrates a marked increase in the utilization of PBT in the treatment of APBT and shows variability in the tumor histology treated over this time.

Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy

BACKGROUND

Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

In total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL.

Pragmatic randomised clinical trial of proton versus photon therapy for patients with non-metastatic breast cancer: the Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Consortium trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

A broad range of stakeholders have called for randomised evidence on the potential clinical benefits and harms of proton therapy, a type of radiation therapy, for patients with breast cancer. Radiation therapy is an important component of curative treatment, reducing cancer recurrence and extending survival. Compared with photon therapy, the international treatment standard, proton therapy reduces incidental radiation to the heart. Our overall objective is to evaluate whether the differences between proton and photon therapy cardiac radiation dose distributions lead to meaningful reductions in cardiac morbidity and mortality after treatment for breast cancer.

METHODS

We are conducting a large scale, multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial for patients with breast cancer who will be followed longitudinally for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life and cancer control outcomes. A total of 1278 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer will be randomly allocated to receive either photon or proton therapy. The primary outcomes are major cardiovascular events, defined as myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for unstable angina, heart failure, valvular disease, arrhythmia or pericardial disease. Secondary endpoints are urgent or unanticipated outpatient or emergency room visits for heart failure, arrhythmia, valvular disease or pericardial disease. The Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Clinical Events Centre will conduct centralised, blinded adjudication of primary outcome events.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The RadComp trial has been approved by the institutional review boards of all participating sites. Recruitment began in February 2016. Current version of the protocol is A3, dated 08 November 2018. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, stakeholder engagement efforts and presentation to the public via lay media outlets.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02603341.

Patient Prioritization for Proton Beam Therapy in a Cost-neutral Payer Environment: Use of the Clinical Benefit Score for Resource Allocation

Objectives There has been a rapid increase in the number of one- and two-room proton beam therapy (PBT) centers, which may be limited in the number of patients they can treat. The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of the 'clinical benefit score' (CBS), utilized as a method for treatment prioritization for PBT operating in a 'cost-neutral' proton-photon payer environment. Materials & methods This study includes patients considered for PBT at a center that initially had only one or two treatment rooms available for clinical use. Patients were prospectively scored using the CBS, and higher scores were prioritized. The outcome was receipt of PBT and the independent variable was CBS. Crude and adjusted analyses were performed using logistic regression. Results There were 2163 patients evaluated. A total of 205 patients (9.5%) were deemed candidates for PBT, which was received by 122 (5.6%) patients. In patients considered for PBT, the mean CBS was 18.7. Patients who were <21 years old, female, non-Caucasian, receiving re-irradiation, and those with Medicare had a higher CBS. Multivariate analysis adjusting for insurance status revealed both CBS and insurance to be significant predictors for receiving PBT. A unit increase in CBS was associated with 1.04 times increased odds of receiving PBT (OR=1.04, 95%CI: 1.01-1.07, p=0.0145) and having Medicare was associated with 3.13 times increased odds of receiving PBT (OR=3.13, 95%CI: 1.57-6.26, p=0.0012). Subgroup analysis, which only included patients enrolled prior to opening the second gantry, showed 1.05 times increased odds of receiving PBT per unit increase in CBS (OR=1.05, 95%CI: 1.00-1.10, p=0.03) and 2.87 times increased odds of receiving PBT in patients with Medicare (OR=2.87, 95%CI: 1.04-7.92, p=0.04). Conclusion  The CBS utilized was significantly associated with the receipt of PBT in a cost-neutral payer setting. Physicians may consider the use of CBS as a resource allocation tool.

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.

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.

Downstream Effect of a Proton Treatment Center on an Academic Medical Center

PURPOSE

To quantify the effects of opening a proton center (PC) on an academic medical center (AMC)/radiation oncology department.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Radiation treatment volume and relative value units from fiscal year 2015 (FY15) to FY17 were retrospectively analyzed at the AMC and 2 community-based centers. To quantify new patient referrals to the AMC, we reviewed the electronic medical record for all patients seen at the PC since consults were initiated in November 2015 (n = 1173). Patients were excluded if the date of entry into the AMC electronic medical record predated their PC consultation. Hospital resource use and professional and technical charges were obtained for these patients. Academic growth, philanthropy, and resident education were evaluated based on grant submissions, clinical trial enrollment, philanthropy, and pediatric case exposure, respectively, from PC opening through FY17.

RESULTS

From FY15 to FY17, radiation fractions at the AMC and the 2 community sites decreased by 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-16%, P < .001) and increased by 19% (95% CI, 16%-23%, P < .001) and 2% (95% CI, -1.1 to 4.3%, P = NS), respectively; the number of new starts decreased by 3% (95% CI, -13% to 7%, P = NS) and 2% (95% CI, -20% to 16%, P = NS) and increased by 13% (95% CI -2% to 27%, P = NS), respectively. At the AMC, technical and professional relative value units decreased by 5% and 14%, respectively. The PC made 561 external referrals to the AMC, which resulted in $2.38 million technical and $2.13 million professional charges at the AMC. Fifteen grant submissions ($12.83 million) resulted in 6 awards ($3.26 million). Twenty-two clinical trials involving proton therapy were opened, on which a total of 5% (n = 54) of patients enrolled during calendar years 2017 and 2018. The PC was involved in gift donations of $1.6 million. There was a nonsignificant 37% increase in number of pediatric cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a slight decline in AMC photon patient volumes and relative value units, a positive downstream effect was associated with the addition of a PC, which benefited the AMC.

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.