Economic data for particle therapy: Dealing with different needs in a heterogeneous landscape

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.

Methodologies to Increase the Level of Evidence of Real-life Proton Therapy in Head and Neck Tumors

This review aims to present and assess available and new methodologies to increase the clinical evidence of proton therapy data for patients with head and neck cancer. Despite the increasing number of scientific reports showing the feasibility and effectiveness of proton therapy in head and neck cancer, clinical evidence on the potential benefits of its use remains low for several reasons. In this article, the pros and cons of consolidated and new methodologies in this setting such as randomized clinical trials, the model-based approach, and the use of prospective multicentric registries will be detailed.

Patients' perspective in the context of proton beam therapy: summary of a Nordic workshop

INTRODUCTION

On 15-16 November 2019, the Skandion Clinic in Sweden hosted the first Nordic workshop on 'Patients' perspective in proton beam therapy'. The workshop was conducted to describe and compare the patient care in PBT clinics in the Nordic countries and to initiate a collaboration, with the target to ensure patient participation and reduce the risk of inequity of access by lowering the barriers for accepting PBT in a distant clinic. The overarching aim of this workshop was to describe and compare the use of patients' perspectives in the Nordic PBT clinics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve participants attended the workshop, representing Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The participants were registered nurses working in patient care, researchers, physicist and leaders of the Skandion Clinic.

RESULTS

The consensus of the workshop was that systematic use of patient experiences on individual and group level is essential for developing clinical practice and understanding the overall effects of PBT. A difference in how the Nordic countries use patient experiences in clinical practise was found. The importance of lowering the barriers for participation in national proton trials and proton treatment were emphasized, however, there is a lack of knowledge about individual and organizational barriers to accepting PBT, and further research is therefore needed.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration between the Nordic countries regarding patients' perspectives in the context of PBT is of importance to compare national differences as well as to find similarities, but most importantly to learn from each other and to improve patient care. Nordic collaboration with focus on systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes in the context of PBT is unique. Collaboration in research offers the possibility to increase the inclusion of patients' perspectives in study protocols.

A systematic review of health economic evaluations of proton beam therapy for adult cancer: Appraising methodology and quality

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

With high treatment costs and limited capacity, decisions on which adult patients to treat with proton beam therapy (PBT) must be based on the relative value compared to the current standard of care. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are the gold-standard method for doing this. We aimed to appraise the methodology and quality of CUAs in this area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify CUA studies of PBT in adult disease using MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLIT, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Web of Science, and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from 1st January 2010 up to 6th June 2018. General characteristics, information relating to modelling approaches, and methodological quality were extracted and synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

Seven PBT CUA studies in adult disease were identified. Without randomised controlled trials to inform the comparative effectiveness of PBT, studies used either results from one-armed studies, or dose-response models derived from radiobiological and epidemiological studies of PBT. Costing methods varied widely. The assessment of model quality highlighted a lack of transparency in the identification of model parameters, and absence of external validation of model outcomes. Furthermore, appropriate assessment of uncertainty was often deficient.

CONCLUSION

In order to foster credibility, future CUA studies must be more systematic in their approach to evidence synthesis and expansive in their consideration of uncertainties in light of the lack of clinical evidence.