Insurance Coverage for Adjuvant Proton Therapy in the Definitive Treatment of Breast Cancer

Effects on Lung Tissue After Breast Cancer Radiation: Comparing Photon and Proton Therapies

Purpose

In breast cancer, improved treatment approaches that reduce injury to lung tissue and early diagnosis and intervention for lung toxicity are increasingly important in survivorship. The aims of this study are to (1) compare lung tissue radiographic changes in women treated with conventional photon radiation therapy and those treated with proton therapy (PT), (2) assess the volume of lung irradiated to 5 Gy (V5) and 20 Gy (V20) by treatment modality, and (3) quantify the effects of V5, V20, time, and smoking history on the severity of tissue radiographic changes.

Patients and Methods

A prospective observational study of female breast cancer patients was conducted to monitor postradiation subclinical lung tissue radiographic changes. Repeated follow-up x-ray computed tomography scans were acquired through 2 years after treatment. In-house software was used to quantify an internally normalized measure of pulmonary tissue density change over time from the computed tomography scans, emphasizing the 6- and 12-month time points.

Results

Compared with photon therapy, PT was associated with significantly lower lung V5 and V20. Lung V20 (but not V5) correlated significantly with increased subclinical lung tissue radiographic changes 6 months after treatment, and neither correlated with lung effects at 12 months. Significant lung tissue density changes were present in photon therapy patients at 6 and 12 months but not in PT patients. Significant lung tissue density change persisted at 12 months in ever-smokers but not in never-smokers.

Conclusion

Patients treated with PT had significantly lower radiation exposure to the lungs and less statistically significant tissue density change, suggesting decreased injury and/or improved recovery compared to photon therapy. These findings motivate additional studies in larger, randomized, and more diverse cohorts to further investigate the contributions of treatment modality and smoking regarding the short- and long-term radiographic effects of radiation on lung tissue.

Proton Therapy in Breast Cancer: A Review of Potential Approaches for Patient Selection

Proton radiotherapy may be a compelling technical option for the treatment of breast cancer due to its unique physical property known as the "Bragg peak." This feature offers distinct advantages, promising superior dose conformity within the tumor area and reduced radiation exposure to surrounding healthy tissues, enhancing the potential for better treatment outcomes. However, proton therapy is accompanied by inherent challenges, primarily higher costs and limited accessibility when compared to well-developed photon irradiation. Thus, in clinical practice, it is important for radiation oncologists to carefully select patients before recommendation of proton therapy to ensure the transformation of dosimetric benefits into tangible clinical benefits. Yet, the optimal indications for proton therapy in breast cancer patients remain uncertain. While there is no widely recognized methodology for patient selection, numerous attempts have been made in this direction. In this review, we intended to present an inspiring summarization and discussion about the current practices and exploration on the approaches of this treatment decision-making process in terms of treatment-related side-effects, tumor control, and cost-efficiency, including the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model, the tumor control probability (TCP) model, genomic biomarkers, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and so on. Additionally, we conducted an evaluation of the eligibility criteria in ongoing randomized controlled trials and analyzed their reference value in patient selection. We evaluated the pros and cons of various potential patient selection approaches and proposed possible directions for further optimization and exploration. In summary, while proton therapy holds significant promise in breast cancer treatment, its integration into clinical practice calls for a thoughtful, evidence-driven strategy. By continuously refining the patient selection criteria, we can harness the full potential of proton radiotherapy while ensuring maximum benefit for breast cancer patients.

Proton versus photon comprehensive nodal breast irradiation

Comprehensive nodal breast irradiation is traditionally treated utilizing 3DCRT planning with a three or four field technique. While the three or four field photon technique may be the standard of care for comprehensive nodal breast treatment, the ipsilateral lung dose and heart mean can often be of concern dependent on patient's anatomy. Standard dose constraints (200cGy x25) per the Alliance A221505 trial strive to maintain the ipsilateral V20<35% and heart mean <3Gy. Double scattering proton therapy treatment has a significant advantage over photons in reducing the ipsilateral lung and heart dose due the Spread-Out Bragg Peak and rapid dose drop off. Proton therapy in comprehensive nodal breast irradiation can be beneficial when dose constraints are exceeding in a photon plan or in the re-irradiation setting. Within this study, a comparison of ipsilateral lung and heart mean doses will be evaluated using both photon three/four field technique and double scattering proton therapy technique. A decreased ipsilateral lung V20 can be correlated to all proton plans that were conducted in the study. In all but one patient there was a decrease in the heart mean as well, which was due to patient anatomy.

Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Purpose

To discuss the role of proton beam therapy (PBT) in the treatment of patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC).

Materials and Methods

A review of the pertinent literature.

Results

Proton beam therapy likely results in reduced acute and late toxicity as compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The extent of the reduced toxicity, which may be modest, depends on the endpoint and technical factors such as pencil beam versus passive scattered PBT and adaptive replanning. The disease control rates after PBT are likely similar to those after IMRT.

Conclusion

Proton beam therapy is an attractive option to treat patients with OPSCC. Whether it becomes widely available depends on access.

Insurance Approval for Definitive Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Purpose

To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that “covered” PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. “Not covered” means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018).

Results

On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44).

Conclusion

Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.