Optimizing Outpatient Radiation Oncology Consult Workflow by Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Efficiency and Financial Impacts.

PURPOSE: Clinical efficiency is a key component of value-based health care. Our objective here was to identify workflow inefficiencies by using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and evaluate the implementation of a new clinical workflow in high-volume outpatient radiation oncology clinics. METHODS: Our quality improvement study was conducted with the Departments of GI, Genitourinary (GU), and Thoracic Radiation Oncology at a large academic cancer center and four community network sites. TDABC was used to create process maps and optimize workflow for outpatient consults. Patient encounter metrics were captured with a real-time status function in the electronic medical record. Time metrics were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Individual patient encounter data for 1,328 consults before the intervention and 1,234 afterward across all sections were included. The median overall cycle time was reduced by 21% in GI (19 minutes), 18% in GU (16 minutes), and 12% at the community sites (9 minutes). The median financial savings per consult were $52 in US dollars (USD) for the GI, $33 USD for GU, $30 USD for thoracic, and $42 USD for the community sites. Patient satisfaction surveys (from 127 of 228 patients) showed that 99% of patients reported that their providers spent adequate time with them and 91% reported being seen by a care provider in a timely manner. CONCLUSION: TDABC can effectively identify opportunities to improve clinical efficiency. Implementing workflow changes on the basis of our findings led to substantial reductions in overall encounter cycle times across several departments, as well as high patient satisfaction and significant financial savings.

Development of Prostate Bed Delineation Consensus Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Radiotherapy and Assessment of Its Effect on Interobserver Variability.

PURPOSE: The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiotherapy planning is becoming more widespread, particularly with the emergence of MRI-guided radiotherapy systems. Existing guidelines for defining the prostate bed clinical target volume (CTV) show considerable heterogeneity. This study aimed to establish baseline interobserver variability (IOV) for prostate bed CTV contouring on MRI, develop international consensus guidelines, and evaluate its effect on IOV. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participants delineated the CTV on 3 MRI scans, obtained from the Elekta Unity MR-Linac, as per their normal practice. Radiation oncologist contours were visually examined for discrepancies, and interobserver comparisons were evaluated against simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) contours using overlap metrics (Dice similarity coefficient and Cohen's kappa), distance metrics (mean distance to agreement and Hausdorff distance), and volume measurements. A literature review of postradical prostatectomy local recurrence patterns was performed and presented alongside IOV results to the participants. Consensus guidelines were collectively constructed, and IOV assessment was repeated using these guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen radiation oncologists' contours were included in the final analysis. Visual evaluation demonstrated significant differences in the superior, inferior, and anterior borders. Baseline IOV assessment indicated moderate agreement for the overlap metrics while volume and distance metrics demonstrated greater variability. Consensus for optimal prostate bed CTV boundaries was established during a virtual meeting. After guideline development, a decrease in IOV was observed. The maximum volume ratio decreased from 4.7 to 3.1 and volume coefficient of variation reduced from 40% to 34%. The mean Dice similarity coefficient rose from 0.72 to 0.75 and the mean distance to agreement decreased from 3.63 to 2.95 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variability in prostate bed contouring exists among international genitourinary experts, although this is lower than previously reported. Consensus guidelines for MRI-based prostate bed contouring have been developed, and this has resulted in an improvement in contouring concordance. However, IOV persists and strategies such as an education program, development of a contouring atlas, and further refinement of the guidelines may lead to additional improvements.

Implementation and Assessment of an Informal Virtual Elective for Medical Student Radiation Oncology Exploration During the COVID19 Pandemic: a Brief Report.

Subspecialty exposure during medical school can be limited. Moreover, the COVID19 pandemic prevented most onsite elective medical student (MS) rotations during 2020. Therefore, we sought to create and assess the efficacy of an informal virtual elective (IVE) for MSs to explore radiation oncology (RO) at our institution. We created IVE activities including invitations to resident didactics, a faculty lecture series, and interactive virtual events with residents and faculty. MSs were offered RO resident and faculty mentors and the opportunity to deliver a lecture. Pre- and post-IVE evaluation surveys were sent to 27 4th year MSs. Surveys utilized importance ordering (1=most important; reported as median (interquartile range), free response, and Likert-type questions (5 = extremely, 1=not at all). Our IVE, held from July to October 2020, had a median of 11 students (range 7-18) attend each activity. Pre- and post-IVE surveys were completed by 22/27 (81%) and 20/27 (74%) MSs, respectively. In pre-IVE, MSs reported participating in the IVE for faculty/resident interaction (1.5 [1, 2]), networking (3 [2, 3]), and learning (4 [3-5]). In post-IVE, MSs reported benefit from faculty mentors (5 [4, 5]), delivering a presentation (5 [3-5]), and faculty lectures (4.5 [4, 5]). In post-IVE, MSs preferred a full onsite away elective (16, 80%) over an official virtual elective (1, 5%) or IVE (3, 15%). Overall, MSs reported that the IVE provided an adequate introduction to RO at our institution (4 [4, 5]). Alternative virtual elective experiences allow MSs to informally evaluate medical subspecialties and could be offered even if formal elective opportunities are available.

Association of Sociodemographic and Health-Related Factors With Receipt of Nondefinitive Therapy Among Younger Men With High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Multiple randomized clinical trials have shown that definitive therapy improves overall survival among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. However, many patients do not receive definitive therapy because of sociodemographic and health-related factors. Objective: To identify factors associated with receipt of nondefinitive therapy (NDT) among patients aged 70 years and younger with high-risk prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study identified 72 036 patients aged 70 years and younger with high-risk prostate cancer and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores of 2 or less who were entered in the National Cancer Database between January 2004 and December 2014. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to December 2019. Exposure: Receipt of NDT as an initial treatment approach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival rates were compared based on receipt of definitive therapy or NDT, and sociodemographic and health-related factors were associated with the type of therapy received. Residual life expectancy was estimated from the National Center for Health Statistics to calculate person-years of life lost. Results: A total of 72 036 men with a median (range) age of 63 (30-70) years, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores of 2 or less, and high-risk prostate cancer without regional lymph node or distant metastatic disease were analyzed. Among eligible patients, 5252 (7.3%) received NDT as an initial therapeutic strategy. On univariate and multivariate analyses, NDT was associated with worse overall survival (univariate analysis hazard ratio, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.40-2.69; P < .001; multivariate analysis hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 2.26-2.56; P < .001). Compared with patients with private insurance or managed care, those with no insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare were more likely to receive systemic therapy only (no insurance: odds ratio [OR], 3.34; 95% CI, 2.81-3.98; P < .001; Medicaid: OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.48-3.43; P < .001; Medicare: OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.53; P < .001) or no treatment (no insurance: OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.24-3.08; P < .001; Medicaid: OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.45-2.01; P < .001; Medicare: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P = .004). Compared with white patients, black patients were more likely to receive systemic therapy only (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.74-2.14; P < .001) or no treatment (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.32-1.61; P < .001), and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive systemic therapy only (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.64; P = .001) or no treatment (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.60; P < .001). Between 2004 and 2014, patients without insurance or enrolled in Medicaid had 1.83-fold greater person-years of life lost compared with patients with private insurance (area under the curve, 77 600 vs 42 300 person-years of life lost). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, receipt of NDT was associated with insurance status and race/ethnicity. While treatment decisions should be individualized for every patient, younger men with high-risk prostate cancer and minimal comorbidities should be encouraged to receive definitive local therapy regardless of other factors. These data suggest that significant barriers to life-extending treatment options for patients with prostate cancer remain.

Comparative Toxicities and Cost of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Proton Radiation, and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Among Younger Men With Prostate Cancer.

Purpose To compare the toxicities and cost of proton radiation and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer among men younger than 65 years of age with private insurance. Methods Using the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, we identified men who received radiation for prostate cancer between 2008 and 2015. Patients undergoing proton therapy and SBRT were propensity score-matched to IMRT patients on the basis of clinical and sociodemographic factors. Proportional hazards models compared the cumulative incidence of urinary, bowel, and erectile dysfunction toxicities by treatment. Cost from a payer's perspective was calculated from claims and adjusted to 2015 dollars. Results A total of 693 proton therapy patients were matched to 3,465 IMRT patients. Proton therapy patients had a lower risk of composite urinary toxicity (33% v 42% at 2 years; P < .001) and erectile dysfunction (21% v 28% at 2 years; P < .001), but a higher risk of bowel toxicity (20% v 15% at 2 years; P = .02). Mean radiation cost was $115,501 for proton therapy patients and $59,012 for IMRT patients ( P < .001). A total of 310 SBRT patients were matched to 3,100 IMRT patients. There were no significant differences in composite urinary, bowel, or erectile dysfunction toxicities between SBRT and IMRT patients ( P > .05), although a higher risk of urinary fistula was noted with SBRT (1% v 0.1% at 2 years; P = .009). Mean radiation cost for SBRT was $49,504 and $57,244 for IMRT ( P < .001). Conclusion Among younger men with prostate cancer, proton radiation was associated with significant reductions in urinary toxicity but increased bowel toxicity at nearly twice the cost of IMRT. SBRT and IMRT were associated with similar toxicity profiles; SBRT was modestly less expensive than IMRT.

Long-term economic value of hypofractionated prostate radiation: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) for prostate cancer shortens the treatment course while providing outcomes comparable with those of conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT). To determine the long-term economic value of HIMRT, including the costs of managing long-term radiation toxicities, a cost minimization analysis compared CIMRT with dose-escalated HIMRT using patient-level data from a randomized trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with localized prostate cancer were randomized to CIMRT (75.6 Gy in 42 fractions over 8.4 weeks) or HIMRT (72 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks). A decision tree modeled trial probabilities of maximum late bowel and urinary toxicities using patient-level data with a median follow-up of 6 years. Costs were estimated from the healthcare perspective using the 2014 national reimbursement rates for services received. Patient-level institutional costs, adjusted to 2014 dollars, verified reimbursements. A sensitivity analysis assessed model uncertainty. RESULTS: The cost for HIMRT and toxicity management was $22,957, saving $7,000 compared with CIMRT ($30,241). CIMRT was the common factor among the 5 most influential scenarios that contributed to total costs. Toxicity represented a small part (<10%) of the average total cost for patients with either grade 2-3 bowel toxicity or grade 2-3 urinary toxicity. However, toxicity management reached up to 26% of the total cost for patients with both high-grade bowel and urinary toxicities. There was no threshold at which CIMRT became the less costly regimen. Institutional costs confirmed the economic value of HIMRT ($6,000 in savings). CONCLUSIONS: HIMRT is more cost-efficient than CIMRT for treating prostate cancer, even when taking into account the costs related to late radiation toxicities. HIMRT enhances the value of prostate radiation when compared with CIMRT.

Defining the value framework for prostate brachytherapy using patient-centered outcome metrics and time-driven activity-based costing.

PURPOSE: Value, defined as outcomes over costs, has been proposed as a measure to evaluate prostate cancer (PCa) treatments. We analyzed standardized outcomes and time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for prostate brachytherapy (PBT) to define a value framework. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with low-risk PCa treated with low-dose-rate PBT between 1998 and 2009 were included. Outcomes were recorded according to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set, which includes acute toxicity, patient-reported outcomes, and recurrence and survival outcomes. Patient-level costs to 1 year after PBT were collected using TDABC. Process mapping and radar chart analyses were conducted to visualize this value framework. RESULTS: A total of 238 men were eligible for analysis. Median age was 64 (range, 46-81). Median followup was 5 years (0.5-12.1). There were no acute Grade 3-5 complications. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 50 scores were favorable, with no clinically significant changes from baseline to last followup at 48 months for urinary incontinence/bother, bowel bother, sexual function, and vitality. Ten-year outcomes were favorable, including biochemical failure-free survival of 84.1%, metastasis-free survival 99.6%, PCa-specific survival 100%, and overall survival 88.6%. TDABC analysis demonstrated low resource utilization for PBT, with 41% and 10% of costs occurring in the operating room and with the MRI scan, respectively. The radar chart allowed direct visualization of outcomes and costs. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully created a visual framework to define the value of PBT using the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set and TDABC costs. PBT is associated with excellent outcomes and low costs. Widespread adoption of this methodology will enable value comparisons across providers, institutions, and treatment modalities.