Insurance Request and Approval Process for Proton Beam Therapy in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Randomized data suggests proton beam therapy (PBT) reduces the risk and severity of toxicities when compared to IMRT in the neoadjuvant or definitive setting for esophageal cancer. As a critical barrier to access to PBT, we investigate our institutional experience with the prior authorization (PA) process for patients (pts) with esophageal cancer.

MATERIALS/METHODS

One hundred and four (104) consecutive pts with esophageal cancer from 2016-2020 at one institution for whom PBT was recommended were analyzed. Data was collected from the customer relations management (CRM) database and electronic health record. Patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, treatment parameters, types of insurance, and clinical outcomes (OS, LF, DF) were recorded. Timepoints of the steps of the PA process included the PA team's initial inquiry, the initial decision, first through third appeals, and outcomes of each appeal (the third of which was regarded as the final decision). Rates of approval and successful appeal were calculated. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to evaluate whether insurance decisions were associated with clinical factors or clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Approval rates by Medicare (n = 68) and private insurance (n = 36) were 100 and 42% on initial request, at a median (range) 0 and 3 (0-15) days from inquiry to determination, respectively. All 21 pts initially denied coverage appealed the decision. Overall, denial was overturned in 48% of pts (median [range] time, 14 [7-36] days from initial inquiry [FIQ]), i.e., PBT was eventually approved for them. The remaining pts proceeded with self-pay or photon therapy. Upon first appeal, 14 pts were denied (median [range] time, 7 [1-26] days FIQ). Upon second appeal, 6 pts were denied (median [range] time, 18 [7-34] days FIQ). Finally, upon third appeal, 2 pts were denied and 1 patient was approved (median [range] time, 2 [20-39] days). Medicare insurance (P < .01) and possessing secondary insurance (P = .02) were found to be associated with increased likelihood of initial approval. Notably, a trend was found between clinical trial enrollment and decreased likelihood of initial approval. Neither initial nor final insurance decisions were found to be associated with OS, LF, or DF.

CONCLUSION

Despite randomized data and policy efforts supporting the use of PBT in esophageal cancer, pts with private payers experience treatment delays and often eventual denial after appeal.

Physician and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Phase III Trial of Ultra-Hypofractionated vs. Moderate Hypofractionated Radiotherapy to the Whole Breast after Breast-Conserving Surgery

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

To report a final analysis evaluating physician and patient-reported outcomes of early breast cancer patients receiving moderate hypofractionation or ultra-hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (RT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

Between April 4, 2018, and February 11, 2020, patients with localized breast cancer (T1-T3, N0-N1, and M0) managed with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive whole breast RT with moderate hypofractionation to 40 Gy in 15 fractions (Arm A) or ultra-hypofractionation to 25 Gy in 5 fractions (Arm B). An optional concurrent integrated boost to 48 Gy on Arm A or 30 Gy on Arm B was allowed. Early toxicity (<3 months), late toxicity (> 3 months), quality of life (QOL), cosmesis, Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and deterioration of cosmesis were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven patients were randomized to moderate hypofractionation (n = 54) or ultra-hypofractionation (n = 53). With a median follow-up of 36 months, no significant differences in patient characteristics were noted between the two arms. There were no patients with a grade ≥3 or higher toxicity. Grade 2 toxicities were 7.4% in Arm A and 7.5% in Arm B, and primarily consisted of radiation dermatitis (6 patients), fibrosis (1 patient) and lymphedema (1 patient). The average Harvard Cosmesis score and overall QoL were similar between arms at all time points, with no patients developing cosmetic deterioration. Patient-reported moderate to severe radiation skin burns were more commonly reported in Arm A (21.05%) vs. Arm B (6.25%) at the end of treatment (EOT) (p = 0.078). At EOT, patients receiving moderate hypofractionation had higher mean toxicity scores in breast tenderness (2.66 vs. 1.5, p = 0.018), skin flaking or peeling (0.63 vs. 0.06, p = 0.035), blistering (0.74 vs. 0.06, p = 0.028), pruritis (2.53 vs. 0.87, p < 0.001), erythema (4.24 vs. 2.0, p <0.001), telangiectasias (1.0 vs. 0.28, p = 0.021). Additionally, patients receiving moderate hypofractionation reported significantly worse changes from baseline at EOT in breast tenderness (-2.25 vs. -.86, p = 0.02), telangiectasia (-0.81 vs. 0.18, p = 0.012), skin discoloration (-4.31 vs. -1.04, p < 0.001), skin flaking or peeling (-.55 vs. 0.04, p = 0.053), blistering (-0.82 vs. -0.07, p = 0.033), and pruritus (-2.27 vs. -.67, p = 0.002). There was a return to baseline in all patient-reported breast domains by 3 months (p >0.05) in both arms.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-hypofractionated whole breast irradiation, consisting of 25 Gy in 5 fractions, provided comparable provider assessed toxicity and cosmetic outcomes to 40 Gy in 15 fractions. At the EOT assessment, ultra-hypofractionation had a better patient reported toxicity profile. Our findings provide further evidence to support daily ultra-hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy as an appropriate treatment option for early-stage breast cancer.

Oncologic Outcomes of Conventionally Fractionated, Hypofractionated, and Stereotactic Body Spot-Scanned Proton Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: The Mayo Clinic Experience

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Spot/pencil beam scanned proton therapy is a relatively new technology with fundamental differences from double scattered or IMRT. We aimed to report the long-term oncologic outcomes of a contemporary prospective series of patients treated with spot-scanned proton therapy (SSPT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

An IRB-approved prospective registry identified patients with prostate cancer treated with proton therapy between January 2016 and December 2018. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all patients. Clinical, demographic, and treatment characteristics were gathered and analyzed. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to estimate survival and recurrence rates. Outcomes assessed included 5-year overall survival (OS), 5-year local control (LC), biochemical failure (BF), regional and distant failures, and physician-reported adverse events (AEs). Biochemical failure was defined as rise in PSA ≥ 2.0 ng/mL above nadir PSA. Acute and chronic gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) grade 2+ and grade 3+ baseline-adjusted AEs were assigned using CTCAE v5.0. All failures were re-staged with PET C-11 or PSMA.

RESULTS

With a median follow up of 4.4 years (IQR 3.7 - 5), two hundred and eighty-six prostate cancer patients with a median age of 72 (IQR 67.5 - 77) were treated with spot-scanned proton radiation. The median Gleason grade group was 3 (IQR 2 - 4). The median pre-RT PSA was 6.9 ng/mL (IQR 4.3 - 10.5). Median T-stage was T1c. Nearly 64% of all patients were on androgen deprivation therapy at the time of initiating radiation treatment. The median total radiation dose was 79.2 Gy delivered over 44 fractions, 70 Gy over 28 fractions, and 38 Gy over 5 fractions for CF, HF, and SBRT regimens, respectively. The BF rate for all patients was 8.4%. The 5-year LC rates for CF, HF, and SBRT were 100% (95% CI: 100 - 100), 100% (95% CI: 100 - 100), and 97.3% (95% CI: 92.2 - 100), respectively (p = 0.07). Regional recurrences occurred in 12 (4.2%) patients: 8 (5.6%) treated with CF, 2 (2.1%) with HF, and 2 (4.3%) with SBRT (p = 0.62). Distant metastatic failures occurred in 12 patients (4.2%): 5 (3.5%) treated with CF, 7 (7.4%) with HF, and none with SBRT (0%) (p = 0.052). The 5-year OS for patients treated with CF, HF, and SBRT SSPT were 88.2% (95% CI: 81.8 - 95), 86.2% (95% CI: 77.6 - 95.6), and 97.2% (95% CI: 92 - 100), respectively (p = 0.1). Acute and chronic grade 2+ GI baseline-adjusted AEs occurred in 8 (2.8%) and 51 (17.8%) patients, respectively. Acute and chronic grade 3+ GI baseline-adjusted AEs occurred in 3 (1%) and 4 (1.4%) patients, respectively. Acute and chronic grade 2+ GU-related AEs were observed in 72 (25.2%) and 63 (22%) patients, respectively. Acute and chronic grade 3+ GU toxicity was observed in 3 (1%) and 6 (2.1%) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Spot-scanned proton radiation therapy provides high local control rates and excellent oncologic outcomes across different fractionation schedules with low long-term AE rates.

Final Analysis of a Phase III Controlled Randomized Study of Stereotactic Body Proton Therapy or Conventionally Fractionated Proton Therapy for Early Prostate Cancer: PCG GU002

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

To determine if stereotactic body proton therapy (SBPT) is non-inferior to conventionally fractionated proton therapy (CFPT) in patients with early prostate cancer.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial that included patients with histologically confirmed low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma defined by Gleason score ≤6, PSA <10 ng/mL, and clinical stage T1-2a N0 M0 by AJCC 7th Ed. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (initially 1:1 and later 2:1 ratio) to CFPT (79.2 Gy in 44 fractions for 9 weeks) or SBPT (38 Gy in 5 fractions for 1 week). Concurrent or adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF) at 2 years, defined as the first occurrence of local, regional, or distant recurrence, biochemical failure by the Phoenix definition (increase of PSA ≥2 ng/mL over the nadir PSA), or the start of salvage therapy including ADT. Secondary endpoints included GI and GU grade ≥2 toxicity according to CTCAE v4 criteria, as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) metrics assessed by AUASI and EPIC scores. Non-inferiority would be declared if the 1-sided 95% confidence interval limit for the difference in 2-year FFF rate was below 4.2% between both groups by Clopper-Pearson exact method.

RESULTS

Between November 2010 and September 2020, 133 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to CFPT (n = 45) or SBPT (n = 88). Median follow-up was 5 years (IQ 3.9-5.2), with the last patient enrolled followed for at least 2 years. The 2-year FFF was 100% for both groups, fulfilling the pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority of SBPT compared to CFPT. By KM estimates, 5-year FFF was 97.4% and 100% (P = 0.1), and the 5-year OS was 97.1% and 95.5% (P = 0.46) for patients treated with CFPT and SBPT, respectively. The cumulative incidence of any grade ≥3 toxicities at 5 years was 0% and 5.7% (P = 0.14) for patients treated with CFPT and SBPT, respectively. The frequency of GI grade ≥2 toxicity at 6 months was of 0% and 2.3% (P = 0.55), and at 2 years was of 6.7% and 3.4% (P = 0.69) for patients treated with CFPT and SBPT, respectively. The frequency of GU grade ≥2 toxicity at 6 months was of 2.2% and 5.7% (P = 0.42), and at 2 years was of 8.9% and 5.7% (P = 0.54) for patients treated with CFPT and SBPT, respectively. Changes in HRQoL scores at 2 years were similar between groups (Table).

CONCLUSION

SBPT is non-inferior to CFPT regarding FFF and associated with similar long-term toxicity rates and HRQoL metric scores.