Radiation Oncology Workforce: Supply and Demand.

Since 2017, the specialty of radiation oncology has experienced its fifth consecutive year of decline in residency applicants, resulting in a high number of unmatched positions. The cause of this precipitous decline is multifactorial. Factors cited include concerns about future job opportunities, the decreased pass rate in the ABR radiation biology and physics boards examinations in 2018, and the continued lack of formal exposure to radiation oncology during medical school training. We summarize the issues facing the field of radiation oncology and discuss how we could learn from similar experiences in diagnostic radiology and other specialties to address these concerns. We propose potential solutions to ensure an adequate and diverse number of residency applicants to serve the future workforce needs in radiation oncology.

Practical Implications of the American Society for Radiation Oncology Radiation Oncology Case Rate Program Proposal for Radiation Oncologists.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology has proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate Program (ROCR) to advocate for fair reimbursement for radiation oncologists. ROCR would replace Medicare fee-for-service with a case rate payment for each of the 15 most common cancer types treated with external beam or stereotactic radiation therapy. This topic discussion attempts to provide a concise overview of the practical implications for radiation oncologists should the ROCR payment program be legislated by Congress and subsequently implemented by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This topic discussion covers the practical changes to billing and reimbursement, the Health Equity Achievement in Radiation Therapy payment, the Quality of Care requirement, and the available tool to calculate the effect of the ROCR based on an individual practice's case mix.

ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for Radiation Oncology.

BACKGROUND: This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the American Radium Society. This practice parameter provides updated reference literature regarding radiation oncology practice and its key personnel. METHODS: This practice parameter was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the American Radium Society. RESULTS: This practice parameter provides a comprehensive update to the reference literature regarding radiation oncology practice in general. The overall roles of the radiation oncologist, the Qualified Medical Physicist, and other specialized personnel involved in the delivery of external-beam radiation therapy are discussed. The use of radiation therapy requires detailed attention to equipment, patient and personnel safety, equipment maintenance and quality assurance, and continuing staff education. Because the practice of radiation oncology occurs in a variety of clinical environments, the judgment of a qualified radiation oncologist should be used to apply these practice parameters to individual practices. Radiation oncologists should follow the guiding principle of limiting radiation exposure to patients and personnel while accomplishing therapeutic goals. CONCLUSION: This practice parameter can be used as an effective tool to guide radiation oncology practice by successfully incorporating the close interaction and coordination among radiation oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, nurses, and radiation therapists.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Management of Liver Cancer: 2022 Update.

The treatment and management of hepatic malignancies can be complex because it encompasses a variety of primary and metastatic malignancies and an assortment of local and systemic treatment options. When to use each of these treatments is critical to ensure the most appropriate care for patients. Interventional radiologists have a key role to play in the delivery of a variety of liver directed treatments including percutaneous ablation, transarterial embolization with bland embolic particles alone, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with injection of a chemotherapeutic emulsion, and transarterial radioembolization (TARE). Based on 9 clinical variants, the appropriateness of each treatment is described in this document. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Virtual Reality-Based Education for Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy.

We built a virtual reality (VR) application that runs on a commercially available standalone VR headset that allows patients to view a virtual simulation of themselves receiving radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to determine if this experience can improve patient understanding of radiotherapy and/or reduce patient anxiety. We created software that reads data from our clinical treatment planning system and renders the plan on a life-size "virtual linear accelerator." The patient's CT simulation data is converted into a 3D translucent virtual human shown lying on the treatment table while visible yellow radiation beams are delivered to the target volumes in the patient. We conducted a prospective study to determine if showing patients their radiotherapy plan in VR improves patient education and/or reduces anxiety about treatment. A total of 43 patients were enrolled. The most common plans were 3D breast tangents and intensity-modulated radiotherapy prostate plans. Patients were administered pre- and post-experience questionnaires. Thirty-two patients (74%) indicated that they "strongly agree" that the VR session gave them a better understanding of how radiotherapy will be used to treat their cancer. Of the 21 patients who expressed any anxiety about radiotherapy beforehand, 12 (57%) said that the VR session helped decrease their anxiety about undergoing radiotherapy. In our single-institution, single-arm prospective patient study, we found that the majority of patients reported that the personalized VR experience was educational and can reduce anxiety. VR technology has potential to be a powerful adjunctive educational tool for cancer patients about to undergo radiotherapy.

An Overview of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model and Impact on Practices Serving Vulnerable Populations.

Radiation oncology reimbursement methodology has been largely unchanged over the past 30 years, and new approaches are of great interest to practicing radiation oncologists and other health care stakeholders. Traditional radiation oncology reimbursement is based on a series of individual codes for evaluation and management (professional) and technical services, yielding a complex reimbursement system. In an attempt to move toward a simpler, episodic payment model, bundling all of the codes into a single payment, an alternative payment model for radiation oncology was developed. The radiation oncology alternative payment model is a revolutionary change in how radiation oncologic services will be reimbursed and has potential to affect all aspects of radiation oncologic care. Here, the authors review the origin of the currently proposed radiation oncology model and discuss potential implications of this model on the provision of care, especially as it relates to rural practices and other underserved and vulnerable patient populations.

Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Participation in Radiation Oncology Practices - A Simple Survey.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to survey nationwide radiation oncology practices on their participation in, burden of, and satisfaction with the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) payment programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All radiation oncology practices accredited by a national specialty organization were invited to participate in a voluntary online survey from December 2018 to January 2019. Questions focused on participation in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) in 2017 and 2018, as by the time of this survey, radiation oncology did not yet have a specialty-specific advanced Alternative Payment Model. RESULTS: Of n = 705 solicited practices, n = 199 completed the survey for an overall response rate of 28.2%. Practices varied significantly in their duration of participation in MACRA programs, means of data submission, and reported improvement activities under MIPS. Forty-nine percent of respondents described being either somewhat or extremely dissatisfied with the ease of submitting measures and data in 2018. The estimated cost to the practices of compliance with MACRA was queried in bins; of users able to estimate the cost of compliance for 2018, the median reported bin was $10,001 to $20,000 (range, less than $1000-100,000 or more). CONCLUSIONS: The participation style in MACRA among radiation oncology practices varied substantially in the years 2017 and 2018. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave no precise estimates on the cost of compliance for MIPS, but estimated a $3019.47 cost of compliance with the mandated Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model in the 2020 Final Rule for selected practices. In this survey, respondents commonly reported the cost of compliance with MACRA significantly exceeded this estimate.

ACR-ASTRO Practice Parameter for Image-guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT).

AIM/OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: The American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) have jointly developed the following practice parameter for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). IGRT is radiation therapy that employs imaging to maximize accuracy and precision throughout the entire process of treatment delivery with the goal of optimizing accuracy and reliability of radiation therapy to the target, while minimizing dose to normal tissues. METHODS: The ACR-ASTRO Practice Parameter for IGRT was revised according to the process described on the ACR website ("The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards," www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Practice-Parametersand-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ASTRO. Both societies then reviewed and approved the document. RESULTS: This practice parameter is developed to serve as a tool in the appropriate application of IGRT in the care of patients with conditions where radiation therapy is indicated. It addresses clinical implementation of IGRT including personnel qualifications, quality assurance standards, indications, and suggested documentation. CONCLUSIONS: This practice parameter is a tool to guide clinical use of IGRT and does not make recommendations on site-specific IGRT directives. It focuses on the best practices and principles to consider when using IGRT effectively, especially with the significant increase in imaging data that is now available with IGRT. The clinical benefit and medical necessity of the imaging modality and frequency of IGRT should be assessed for each patient.

Clinical Documentation and Patient Care Using Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Oncology.

Detailed clinical documentation is required in the patient-facing specialty of radiation oncology. The burden of clinical documentation has increased significantly with the introduction of electronic health records and participation in payer-mandated quality initiatives. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to reduce the burden of data entry associated with clinical documentation, provide clinical decision support, improve quality and value, and integrate patient data from multiple sources. The authors discuss key elements of an AI-enhanced clinic and review some emerging technologies in the industry. Challenges regarding data privacy, regulation, and medicolegal liabilities must be addressed for such AI technologies to be successful.