Health Services Research in Brachytherapy: Current Understanding and Future Challenges.

Brachytherapy is an integral component of cancer care. Widespread concerns have been expressed though about the need for greater brachytherapy availability across many jurisdictions. Yet, health services research in brachytherapy has lagged behind that in external beam radiotherapy. Optimal brachytherapy utilisation, to help inform expected demand, have not been defined beyond the New South Wales region in Australia, with few studies having reported observed brachytherapy utilisation. There is also a relative lack of robust cost and cost-effectiveness studies, making investment decisions in brachytherapy even more uncertain and challenging to justify, despite its key role in cancer control. As the range of indications for brachytherapy expands, providing organ/function preservation for a wider range of diagnoses, there is an urgent need to redress this balance. By outlining the work undertaken in this area to date, we highlight its importance and explore where further study is required.

[Brachytherapy in France in 2020: State of the art and perspectives from the Groupe curiethérapie de la SFRO]. / Curiethérapie en France en 2020 : synthèse et perspectives du Groupe curiethérapie de la Société française de radiothérapie oncologique.

Because of its principle and its high proof level clinical results, brachytherapy represents a specific irradiation technique for the treatment of primary tumors as well as some local relapses in pre-irradiated area. After a glory period between the 80's and 90's, brachytherapy has progressively lost its attractiveness. In order to provide a practical solution to this deleterious situation, it is important that guardianships, health care payers, patient associations, specialist doctors and radiation oncologists understand the reasons leading to this harmful state as well as the risks concerned. A teaching judged insufficient, non-adapted value and an aging image of brachytherapy represent the three main reasons of this degradation and constitute the three most important challenges conditioning its maintain in the anticancer treatment arsenal. An adapted communication with radiation oncologists themselves but also with the other scientific societies remains crucial as well as with guardianship and patient associations. It is central that brachytherapy could be recognized in order to make it stronger and accessible for all the patients who could need it.

Declining brachytherapy utilization for cervical cancer patients - Have we reversed the trend?

OBJECTIVE: Studies examining temporal trends in cervical brachytherapy use are conflicting and examined different health insurance populations. This study examined brachytherapy utilization over time by health insurance type and whether reported declines in brachytherapy have reversed. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with FIGO IIB-IVA cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy between 2004 and 2014, identifying 17,442 patients. Brachytherapy utilization over time and by insurance type and other sociodemographic factors were compared using binary logistic regression. A sensitivity analysis was done in a sub-cohort of patients using the boost modality variable in the NCDB. RESULTS: Brachytherapy utilization declined during 2008-10 (52.6%) compared to 2004-2007 (54.4%; odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.01) and declines were disproportionately larger for patients with government insurance (49.4% vs 52.3%, respectively) than privately-insured patients (57.6% vs 58.9%, respectively). However, rates of brachytherapy use subsequently recovered during 2011-14 in all insurance groups (58.0%, OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.16-1.34) and was especially improved for Medicaid (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.26-1.65) and uninsured patients (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.57). Sensitivity analysis using the boost modality variable confirmed these trends. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with FIGO IIB-IVA cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy from 2004 to 2014, brachytherapy utilization declined during the late 2000s and disproportionately affected patients with government insurance, but subsequently recovered in the early 2010s. Since government insurance covers vulnerable patient populations at-risk for future declines in brachytherapy use, proposed alternative payment models should incentivize cervical brachytherapy to solidify gains in brachytherapy utilization.

High-volume providers and brachytherapy practice: A Medicare provider utilization and payment analysis.

PURPOSE: Brachytherapy is an important component of the treatment of gynecologic and prostate cancers, with data supporting its impact on clinical outcomes. Prior data have suggested that brachytherapy tends to be focused at high-volume centers. Medicare reimbursement data can provide an understanding of the distribution of brachytherapy cases among billing providers. The objective of this study is to quantify the distribution of brachytherapy cases and high volume providers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was queried for individual physicians who had performed brachytherapy for more than 10 patients with gynecologic or prostate cancer in the years 2012-2015. Aggregate data were also queried. Trends were identified, and basic summary statistics were tabulated. RESULTS: During the study period, there was an increase in vaginal brachytherapy (3328 unique cases in 2012-4308 in 2015) but a decrease in intrauterine implants, such as tandem placements (1522 in 2012-1307 in 2015) and prostate brachytherapy (8860 in 2012-6527 in 2015). High-volume providers treating more than 10 patients represented a disproportionate number of patients treated, particularly with intra-uterine brachytherapy, representing no more than 1.2% of the active providers in a given year but up to 11.1% of intra-uterine brachytherapy cases. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare claims, a small number of providers accounted for a significant proportion of gynecologic and prostate brachytherapy cases, particularly in the case of intrauterine implants. The vast majority of brachytherapy providers perform limited cases in this population. Efforts toward improving access to intrauterine implants in Medicare patients should be a national priority.

Radiotherapy access in Belgium: How far are we from evidence-based utilisation?

INTRODUCTION: Underutilisation of radiotherapy has been observed worldwide. To evaluate the current situation in Belgium, optimal utilisation proportions (OUPs) adopted from the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology - Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (ESTRO-HERO) project were compared to actual utilisation proportions (AUPs) and with radiotherapy advised during the multidisciplinary cancer team (MDT) meetings. In addition, the impact of independent variables was analysed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AUPs and advised radiotherapy were calculated overall and by cancer type for 110,810 unique cancer diagnoses in 2009-2010. Radiotherapy utilisation was derived from reimbursement data and distinguished between palliative and curative intent external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy (BT). Sensitivity analyses regarding the influence of the follow-up period, the survival length and patient's age were performed. Advised radiotherapy was calculated based on broad treatment categories as reported at MDT meetings. RESULTS: The overall AUP of 37% (39% including BT) was lower than the OUP of 53%, but in line with advised radiotherapy (35%). Large variations by tumour type were observed: in some tumours (e.g. lung and prostate cancer) AUP was considerably lower than OUP, whereas in others there was reasonable concordance (e.g. breast and rectal cancer). Overall, 84% of treatments started within 9 months following diagnosis. Survival time influenced AUP in a cancer type-dependent way. Elderly patients received less radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Although the actually delivered radiotherapy in Belgium aligns well to MDT advices, it is lower than the evidence-based optimum. Further analysis of potential barriers is needed for radiotherapy forecasting and planning, and in order to promote adequate access to radiotherapy.

Adoption of Radiation Technology Among Privately Insured Nonelderly Patients With Cancer in the United States, 2008 to 2014: A Claims-Based Analysis.

Despite enthusiasm for advanced radiation technologies, understanding of their adoption in recent years is limited. The aim of this study was to elucidate utilization trends of conventional radiation, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, proton radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using a large convenience sample of irradiated patients with cancer identified from private insurance claims in the United States. The unit of analysis was a claim corresponding to a fraction of delivered radiotherapy from 2008 to 2014. Each claim was assigned a disease site on the basis of the diagnosis code and a radiation technology on the basis of the procedure code. In 2014, conventional radiation and IMRT constituted 56% and 39% of all radiation treatment claims, respectively, while brachytherapy constituted 2%, proton radiotherapy 1%, SBRT 1%, and SRS <1%. Compared with the first quarter of 2008, the proportional contribution of conventional radiation and brachytherapy to all radiation claims each decreased by 16% in the fourth quarter of 2014. In contrast, proportional contribution increased by 32% for IMRT, 83% for proton radiotherapy, 124% for SRS, and 309% for SBRT. Prostate cancer constituted 60% of all proton claims in 2008 but declined to 37% by 2014. SBRT was used to treat a variety of disease sites, most commonly primary lung (25%), prostate (12%), secondary bone (9%), and secondary lung (9%), in 2014. In this claims-based analysis of younger patients with private insurance, conventional radiation and IMRT were the most commonly used technologies from 2008 to 2014, while SBRT showed the most robust growth over the study period.

Utilization and Outcomes of Breast Brachytherapy in Younger Women.

PURPOSE: To directly compare (1) radiation treatment utilization patterns; (2) risks of subsequent mastectomy; and (3) costs of radiation treatment in patients treated with brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation (WBI), in a national, contemporary cohort of women with incident breast cancer, aged 64 years and younger. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using MarketScan health care claims data, we identified 45,884 invasive breast cancer patients (aged 18-64 years), treated from 2003 to 2010 with lumpectomy, followed by brachytherapy (n = 3134) or whole-breast irradiation (n = 42,750). We stratified patients into risk groups according to age (Age < 50 vs Age ≥ 50) and endocrine therapy status (Endocrine- vs Endocrine+). "Endocrine+" patients filled an endocrine therapy prescription within 1 year after lumpectomy. Pathologic hormone receptor status was not available in this dataset. In brachytherapy versus WBI patients, utilization trends and 5-year subsequent mastectomy risks were compared. Stratified, adjusted subsequent mastectomy risks were calculated using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Brachytherapy utilization increased from 2003 to 2010: in patients Age < 50, from 0.6% to 4.9%; patients Age ≥ 50 from 2.2% to 11.3%; Endocrine- patients, 1.3% to 9.4%; Endocrine+ patients, 1.9% to 9.7%. Age influenced treatment selection more than endocrine status: 17% of brachytherapy patients were Age < 50 versus 32% of WBI patients (P < .001); whereas 41% of brachytherapy patients were Endocrine-versus 44% of WBI patients (P = .003). Highest absolute 5-year subsequent mastectomy risks occurred in Endocrine-/Age < 50 patients (24.4% after brachytherapy vs 9.0% after WBI (hazard ratio [HR] 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.47); intermediate risks in Endocrine-/Age ≥ 50 patients (8.6% vs 4.9%; HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.26-2.46); and lowest risks in Endocrine+ patients of any age: Endocrine+/Age < 50 (5.5% vs 4.5%; HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.61-2.31); Endocrine+/Age ≥ 50 (4.2% vs 2.4%; HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.16-2.51). CONCLUSION: In this younger cohort, endocrine status was a valuable discriminatory factor predicting subsequent mastectomy risk after brachytherapy versus WBI and therefore may be useful for selecting appropriate younger brachytherapy candidates.

Shifting brachytherapy monotherapy case mix toward intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The relative use of brachytherapy (BT) for prostate cancer has declined in recent years. In this setting, we sought to determine whether the case mix of BT monotherapy-treated men has changed over time in terms of risk group composition. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to identify 30,939 patients diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2011 who received BT monotherapy. The case mix of BT monotherapy patients was calculated by patient risk group and year of diagnosis. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2011, the use of BT monotherapy declined overall. The relative percentage of men undergoing BT with low-risk disease declined by 4.5%, whereas the relative percentage of patients with intermediate-risk disease increased by 4.7%. Non-white patients and those from poorer counties did not show shifts in the risk group makeup of BT monotherapy patients, whereas white patients and those from wealthier counties did. CONCLUSIONS: Although fewer patients with prostate cancer are undergoing BT monotherapy, men with intermediate-risk disease comprised a significantly larger portion of the BT case mix in 2011 compared with 2004. Future research efforts by brachytherapists should be directed toward improving BT technique, optimizing radiation doses, and obtaining long-term followup data for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Nationally representative trends and geographic variation in treatment of localized prostate cancer: the Urologic Diseases in America project.

BACKGROUND: Several treatment options for clinically localized prostate cancer currently exist under the established guidelines. We aim to assess nationally representative trends in treatment over time and determine potential geographic variation using two large national claims registries. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer insured by Medicare (1998-2006) or a private insurer (Ingenix database, 2002-2006) were identified using International Classification of Diseases-9 and Current Procedural Terminology-4 codes. Geographic variation and trends in the type of treatment utilized over time were assessed. Geographic data were mapped using the GeoCommons online mapping platform. Predictors of any treatment were determined using a hierarchical generalized linear mixed model using the logit link function. RESULTS: The use of radical prostatectomy increased, 33-48%, in the privately insured i3 database while remaining stable at 12% in the Medicare population. There was a rapid uptake in the use of newer technologies over time in both the Medicare and i3 cohorts. The use of laparoscopic-assisted prostatectomy increased from 1% in 2002 to 41% in 2006 in i3 patients, whereas the incidence increased from 3% in 2002 to 35% in 2006 for Medicare patients. The use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was lower in the i3 cohort and has decreased over time in both i3 and Medicare. Physician density had an impact on the type of primary treatment received in the New England region; however, this trend was not seen in the western or southern regions of the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Using two large national claims registries, we have demonstrated trends over time and substantial geographic variation in the type of primary treatment used for localized prostate cancer. Specifically, there has been a large increase in the use of newer technologies (that is, laparoscopic-assisted prostatectomy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy). These results elucidate the need for improved data collection on prostate cancer treatment outcomes to reduce unwarranted variation in care.

[End of the commercialisation of (192)Ir wires in France: proposals of the groupe de Curiethérapie de la SFRO]. / Arrêt de la commercialisation des fils d'iridium 192 en France : proposition du groupe de curiethérapie de la Société française de radiothérapie oncologique.

In 2014, the production of iridium 192 wires in France ended. Thus brachytherapy departments had to move to high-dose rate and pulsed-dose rate afterloading techniques. Most of them had already made this migration for some indications, based on the habits and investments. The brachytherapy group organised meetings and opened discussions to share the clinical knowledge and answer to the questions raised by this migration. This made it possible to resolve and describe quite all the clinical and technical cases of brachytherapy. The development of high technology included the use of 3D dosimetry and optimisation of dose distribution and fractionation. The teaching policy of new technologies contributes to the improvement of treatment quality. Last but not least, a better reimbursement of brachytherapy is necessary and currently negotiated.

[Brachytherapy in France: current situation and economic outlook due to the unavailability of iridium wires]. / Curiethérapie en France : état des lieux et perspectives économiques après l'arrêt de la commercialisation des fils d'iridium.

In 2013, about 6000 patients were treated with brachytherapy, the number diminishing by 2.6% per year since 2008. Prostate, breast and gynecological cancers are the most common types of cancers. Since 2008, the number of brachytherapy facilities has decreased by 18%. In medicoeconomic terms, brachytherapy faces many problems: the coding system is outdated; brachytherapy treatments cost as much as internal radiation; fees do not cover costs; since iridium wire has disappeared from the market, the technique will be transferred to more expensive high-speed or pulse dose rates. The French financing grid based on the national study of costs lags behind changes in such treatments and in the best of cases, hospitals resorting to alternatives such as in-hospital brachytherapy are funded at 46% of their additional costs. Brachytherapy is a reference technique. With intense pressure on hospital pricing, financing brachytherapy facilities will become even more problematic as a consequence of the disappearance of iridium 192 wires. The case of brachytherapy illustrates the limits of the French financing system and raises serious doubts as to its responsiveness.

Perspectives of brachytherapy: patterns of care, new technologies, and "new biology".

Brachytherapy has come a long way from its beginnings nearly a century ago. In recent years, brachytherapy has become ever more sophisticated thanks to a multitude of technological developments, including high-dose rate afterloading machines, image-guidance, and advanced planning systems. One of the advantages of brachytherapy, apart from the well-known capability of delivering highly conformal doses directly to the target, is that it is highly adaptable and can be used as a primary, adjunct, or salvage treatment. However, despite the existence of international treatment guidelines, the clinical practice of brachytherapy varies greatly by region, country, and even institution. In the present article, we provide an overview of recent findings from the Patterns of Care for Brachytherapy in Europe (PCBE) Study and we discuss new technologies used in brachytherapy and the emerging concept of "new biology" that supports the use of high-dose brachytherapy. Compared to the 1990s, the use of brachytherapy has increased substantially and it is expected to continue growing in the future as it becomes ever more precise and efficient.

The rise and fall of prostate brachytherapy: use of brachytherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy has been shown to be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment among patients with localized prostate cancer. In this study, the authors examined trends in brachytherapy use for localized prostate cancer using a large national cancer registry. METHODS: In the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), a total of 1,547,941 patients with localized prostate cancer were identified from 1998 through 2010. Excluding patients with lymph node-positive or metastatic disease, the authors examined primary treatment trends focusing on the use of brachytherapy over time. Patients with available data (2004-2009) were stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk criteria. Controlling for year of diagnosis and demographic, clinical, and pathologic characteristics, multivariate analyses were performed examining the association between patient characteristics and receipt of brachytherapy. RESULTS: In the study cohort, brachytherapy use reached a peak of 16.7% in 2002, and then steadily declined to a low of 8% in 2010. Of the 719,789 patients with available data for risk stratification, 41.1%, 35.3%, and 23.6%, respectively, met low, intermediate, and high National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk criteria. After adjustment, patients of increasing age and those with Medicare insurance were more likely to receive brachytherapy. In contrast, patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk disease, Medicaid insurance, increasing comorbidity count, and increasing year of diagnosis were less likely to receive brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with localized prostate cancer who are treated at National Cancer Data Base institutions, there has been a steady decline in brachytherapy use since 2003. For low-risk patients, the declining use of brachytherapy monotherapy compared with more costly emerging therapies has significant health policy implications.

The adoption of new adjuvant radiation therapy modalities among Medicare beneficiaries with breast cancer: clinical correlates and cost implications.

PURPOSE: New radiation therapy modalities have broadened treatment options for older women with breast cancer, but it is unclear how clinical factors, geographic region, and physician preference affect the choice of radiation therapy modality. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to identify women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer from 1998 to 2007 who underwent breast-conserving surgery. We assessed the temporal trends in, and costs of, the adoption of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and brachytherapy. Using hierarchical logistic regression, we evaluated the relationship between the use of these new modalities and patient and regional characteristics. RESULTS: Of 35,060 patients, 69.9% received conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Although overall radiation therapy use remained constant, the use of IMRT increased from 0.0% to 12.6% from 1998 to 2007, and brachytherapy increased from 0.7% to 9.0%. The statistical variation in brachytherapy use attributable to the radiation oncologist and geographic region was 41.4% and 9.5%, respectively (for IMRT: 23.8% and 22.1%, respectively). Women undergoing treatment at a free-standing radiation facility were significantly more likely to receive IMRT than were women treated at a hospital-based facility (odds ratio for IMRT vs EBRT: 3.89 [95% confidence interval, 2.78-5.45]). No such association was seen for brachytherapy. The median radiation therapy cost per treated patient increased from $5389 in 2001 to $8539 in 2007. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT and brachytherapy use increased substantially from 1998 to 2007; overall, radiation therapy costs increased by more than 50%. Radiation oncologists played an important role in treatment choice for both types of radiation therapy, whereas geographic region played a bigger role in the use of IMRT than brachytherapy.