ABSTRACT
Purpose: The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) is a widely used tool for evaluating patient-reported lower urinary tract symptoms. In this study, we assessed patients with prostate cancer and their understanding of IPSS questions. Methods and Materials: Consecutive patients with prostate cancer (N = 144) self-completed an online IPSS questionnaire within 1 week before their visit at our radiation oncology clinic. At the visit, a nurse reviewed each IPSS question to ensure the patient understood it and then verified the patient's answer. Preverified and nurse-verified scores were recorded and analyzed for discrepancies. Results: Complete concordance between preverified and nurse-verified responses to individual IPSS questions existed for 70 men (49%). In terms of overall IPSS score, 61 men (42%) had a lower or improved IPSS after nurse verification, and 9 men (6%) had a higher or worse IPSS. Before verification, patients overstated their symptoms of frequency, intermittency, and incomplete emptying. As a result of the nurse verification, 4 of 7 patients with IPSS in the severe range (20-35) were recategorized to the moderate range (8-19). Sixteen percent of patients whose preverified IPSS were in the moderate range were recategorized after nurse verification to the mild range (0-7). Treatment option eligibility changed for 10% of patients after nurse verification. Conclusions: Patients frequently misunderstand the IPSS questionnaire, leading them to respond in ways that do not accurately reflect their symptoms. Clinicians should verify patient understanding of the IPSS questions, particularly when using the score to determine eligibility for treatments.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Prior authorization (PA) has been widely implemented for proton beam therapy (PBT). We sought to determine the association between PA determination and patient characteristics, practice guidelines, and potential treatment delays. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-institution retrospective analysis was performed of all patients considered for PBT between 2015 and 2018 at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Differences in treatment start times and denial rates over time were compared, and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of initial denial. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients were considered for PBT, including 396 adult and 48 pediatric patients. The American Society for Radiation Oncology model policy supported PBT coverage for 77% of the cohort. Of adult patients requiring PA, 64% were initially denied and 32% remained denied after appeal. In patients considered for reirradiation or randomized phase 3 trial enrollment, initial denial rates were 57% and 64%, respectively. Insurance coverage was not related to diagnosis, reirradiation, trial enrollment, or the American Society for Radiation Oncology model policy guidelines, but it was related to insurance category on multivariable analysis (P < .001). Over a 3-year timespan, initial denial rates increased from 55% to 74% (P = .034). PA delayed treatment start by an average of 3 weeks (and up to 4 months) for those requiring appeal (P < .001) and resulted in 19% of denied patients abandoning radiation treatment altogether. Of pediatric patients, 9% were initially denied, all of whom were approved after appeal, and PA requirement did not delay treatment start (P = .47). CONCLUSIONS: PA requirements in adults represent a significant burden in initiating PBT and cause significant delays in patient care. Insurance approval is arbitrary and has become more restrictive over time, discordant with national clinical practice guidelines. Payors and providers should seek to streamline coverage policies in alignment with established guidelines to ensure appropriate and timely patient care.