The case for radiotherapy in a Value based environment

Increasing Use of Shorter-Course Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Importance

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the noninferiority of shorter radiotherapy (RT) courses (termed hypofractionation) compared with longer RT courses in patients with localized prostate cancer. Although shorter courses are associated with cost-effectiveness, convenience, and expanded RT access, their adoption remains variable.

Objective

To identify the current practice patterns of external beam RT for prostate cancer in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study obtained data from the National Cancer Database, which collects hospital registry data from more than 1500 accredited US facilities on approximately 72% of US patients with cancer. Patients were included in the sample if they had localized prostate adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between 2004 and 2020 and underwent external beam RT with curative intent. Analyses were conducted between February and March 2023.

Exposures

Radiotherapy schedules, which were categorized as ultrahypofractionation (≤7 fractions), moderate hypofractionation (20-30 fractions), and conventional fractionation (31-50 fractions).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Longitudinal pattern in RT fractionation schedule was the primary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the variables associated with shorter RT courses. Covariables included age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, rurality, race, facility location, facility type, median income, insurance type or status, and Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index.

Results

A total of 313 062 patients with localized prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.8 [7.7] years) were included in the analysis. There was a temporal pattern of decline in the proportion of patients who received conventional fractionation, from 76.0% in 2004 to 36.6% in 2020 (P for trend <.001). From 2004 to 2020, use of moderate hypofractionation increased from 22.0% to 45.0% (P for trend <.001), and use of ultrahypofractionation increased from 2.0% to 18.3% (P for trend <.001). By 2020, the most common RT schedule was ultrahypofractionation for patients in the low-risk group and moderate hypofractionation for patients in the intermediate-risk group. On multivariable analysis, treatment at a community cancer program (compared with academic or research program; odds ratio [OR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.52-0.56]; P < .001), Medicaid insurance (compared with Medicare; OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.41-1.57]; P < .001), Black race (compared with White race; OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.87-0.92]; P < .001), and higher median income (compared with lower median income; OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.25-1.31]; P < .001) were associated with receipt of shorter courses of RT.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cohort study showed an increase in the use of shorter courses of RT for prostate cancer from 2004 to 2020; a number of social determinants of health appeared to be associated with reduced adoption of shorter treatment courses. Realignment of reimbursement models may be necessary to enable broader adoption of ultrahypofractionation to support technology acquisition costs.

Costs Around the First Year of Diagnosis for 4 Common Cancers Among the Privately Insured

BACKGROUND

We estimated trends in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs around the first year of diagnosis for privately insured nonelderly adult cancer patients.

METHODS

We constructed incident cohorts of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 using claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute. We identified cancer-related surgery, intravenous (IV) systemic therapy, and radiation and calculated associated total and OOP costs (in 2020 US dollars). We assessed trends in health-care utilization and cost by cancer site with logistic regressions and generalized linear models, respectively.

RESULTS

The cohorts included 105 255 breast, 23 571 colorectal, 11 321 lung, and 59 197 prostate cancer patients. For patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016, total mean costs per patient increased from $109 544 to $140 732 for breast (29%), $151 751 to $168 730 for lung (11%) or $53 300 to $55 497 for prostate (4%) cancer were statistically significant. Increase for colorectal cancer (1%, $136 652 to $137 663) was not statistically significant (P = .09). OOP costs increased to more than 15% for all cancers, including colorectal, to more than $6000 by 2016. Use of IV systemic therapy and radiation statistically significantly increased, except for lung cancer. Cancer surgeries statistically significantly increased for breast and colorectal cancer but decreased for prostate cancer (P < .001). Total costs increased statistically significantly for nearly all treatment modalities, except for IV systemic therapy in colorectal and radiation in prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Rising costs of cancer treatments, compounded with greater cost sharing, increased OOP costs for privately insured, nonelderly cancer patients. Policy initiatives to mitigate financial hardship should consider cost containment as well as insurance reform.

Drivers of Medicare Spending: A 15-Year Review of Radiation Oncology Charges Allowed by the Medicare Physician/Supplier Fee-for-Service Program Compared With Other Specialties

PURPOSE

In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed a new radiation oncology alternative payment model aimed at reducing expenditures. We examined changes in aggregate physician Medicare charges allowed per specialty to provide contemporary context to proposed changes and hypothesize that radiation oncology charges remained stable through 2017.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Medicare physician/supplier utilization, program payments, and balance billing for original Medicare beneficiaries, by physician specialty, were analyzed from 2002 to 2017. Total allowed charges under the physician/supplier fee-for-service program, inflation-adjusted charges, and percent of total charges billed per specialty were examined. We adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index for medical care from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

RESULTS

Total allowed charges increased from $83 billion in 2002 to $138 billion in 2017. The specialties accounting for the most charges billed to Medicare were internal medicine and ophthalmology. Radiation oncology charges accounted for 1.2%, 1.6%, and 1.4% of total charges allowed by Medicare in 2002, 2012, and 2017, respectively. Radiation oncology charges allowed increased 44% from 2002 to 2012 ($987.6 million to $1.42 billion) but decreased by 19% from 2012 to 2017 ($1.15 billion), adjusted for inflation. Total charges allowed by internal medicine decreased 2% from 2002 to 2012 ($8.53 to $8.36 billion), adjusted for inflation, and decreased 16% from 2012 to 2017 ($7.05 billion). When adjusting for inflation, ophthalmology charges increased 18% from 2002 to 2012 ($4.53 to $5.36 billion) and increased 3% from 2012 to 2017 ($5.5 billion).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation oncology physician charges represent a small fraction of total Medicare expenses and are not a driver for Medicare spending. Aggregate inflation-adjusted charges by radiation oncology have dramatically declined in the past 5 years and represent a stable fraction of total Medicare charges. The need to target radiation oncology with cost-cutting measures may be overstated.