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.

Investigation of autosegmentation techniques on T2-weighted MRI for off-line dose reconstruction in MR-linac workflow for head and neck cancers.

BACKGROUND: In order to accurately accumulate delivered dose for head and neck cancer patients treated with the Adapt to Position workflow on the 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-linear accelerator (MR-linac), the low-resolution T2-weighted MRIs used for daily setup must be segmented to enable reconstruction of the delivered dose at each fraction. PURPOSE: In this pilot study, we evaluate various autosegmentation methods for head and neck organs at risk (OARs) on on-board setup MRIs from the MR-linac for off-line reconstruction of delivered dose. METHODS: Seven OARs (parotid glands, submandibular glands, mandible, spinal cord, and brainstem) were contoured on 43 images by seven observers each. Ground truth contours were generated using a simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm. Twenty total autosegmentation methods were evaluated in ADMIRE: 1-9) atlas-based autosegmentation using a population atlas library (PAL) of 5/10/15 patients with STAPLE, patch fusion (PF), random forest (RF) for label fusion; 10-19) autosegmentation using images from a patient's 1-4 prior fractions (individualized patient prior [IPP]) using STAPLE/PF/RF; 20) deep learning (DL) (3D ResUNet trained on 43 ground truth structure sets plus 45 contoured by one observer). Execution time was measured for each method. Autosegmented structures were compared to ground truth structures using the Dice similarity coefficient, mean surface distance (MSD), Hausdorff distance (HD), and Jaccard index (JI). For each metric and OAR, performance was compared to the inter-observer variability using Dunn's test with control. Methods were compared pairwise using the Steel-Dwass test for each metric pooled across all OARs. Further dosimetric analysis was performed on three high-performing autosegmentation methods (DL, IPP with RF and 4 fractions [IPP_RF_4], IPP with 1 fraction [IPP_1]), and one low-performing (PAL with STAPLE and 5 atlases [PAL_ST_5]). For five patients, delivered doses from clinical plans were recalculated on setup images with ground truth and autosegmented structure sets. Differences in maximum and mean dose to each structure between the ground truth and autosegmented structures were calculated and correlated with geometric metrics. RESULTS: DL and IPP methods performed best overall, all significantly outperforming inter-observer variability and with no significant difference between methods in pairwise comparison. PAL methods performed worst overall; most were not significantly different from the inter-observer variability or from each other. DL was the fastest method (33 s per case) and PAL methods the slowest (3.7-13.8 min per case). Execution time increased with a number of prior fractions/atlases for IPP and PAL. For DL, IPP_1, and IPP_RF_4, the majority (95%) of dose differences were within ± 250 cGy from ground truth, but outlier differences up to 785 cGy occurred. Dose differences were much higher for PAL_ST_5, with outlier differences up to 1920 cGy. Dose differences showed weak but significant correlations with all geometric metrics (R2 between 0.030 and 0.314). CONCLUSIONS: The autosegmentation methods offering the best combination of performance and execution time are DL and IPP_1. Dose reconstruction on on-board T2-weighted MRIs is feasible with autosegmented structures with minimal dosimetric variation from ground truth, but contours should be visually inspected prior to dose reconstruction in an end-to-end dose accumulation workflow.

Using patient flow analysis with real-time patient tracking to optimize radiation oncology consultation visits.

PURPOSE: Clinical efficiency is a key component of the value-based care model and a driver of patient satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to identify and address inefficiencies at a high-volume radiation oncology clinic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patient flow analysis (PFA) was used to create process maps and optimize the workflow of consultation visits in a gastrointestinal radiation oncology clinic at a large academic cancer center. Metrics such as cycle times, waiting times, and rooming times were assessed by using a real-time patient status function in the electronic medical record for 556 consults and compared between before vs after implementation of the PFA recommendations. RESULTS: The initial PFA revealed four inefficiencies: (1) protracted rooming time, (2) inefficient communications, (3) duplicated tasks, and (4) ambiguous clinical roles. We analyzed 485 consult-visits before the PFA and 71 after the PFA. The PFA recommendations led to reductions in overall median cycle time by 21% (91 min vs 72 min, p < 0.001), in cumulative waiting times by 64% (45 min vs 16 min; p < 0.001), which included waiting room time (14 min vs 5 min; p < 0.001) and wait for physician (20 min vs. 6 min; p < 0.001). Slightly less than one-quarter (22%) of consult visits before the PFA lasted > 2 h vs. 0% after implementation of the recommendations (p < 0.001). Similarly, the proportion of visits requiring < 1 h was 16% before PFA vs 34% afterward (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PFA can be used to identify clinical inefficiencies and optimize workflows in radiation oncology consultation clinics, and implementing their findings can significantly improve cycle times and waiting times. Potential downstream effects of these interventions include improved patient experience, decreased staff burnout, financial savings, and opportunities for expanding clinical capacity.

Postoperative Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced NSCLC: Implications for Shifting to Conformal, High-Risk Fields.

BACKGROUND: To examine the effect of radiotherapy field size on survival outcomes and patterns of recurrence in patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 216 patients with T1-4 N1-2 NSCLC following surgery and PORT using whole mediastinum (WM) or high-risk (HR) nodal fields from 1998 to 2015. Survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards modeling for outcomes and logistic regression analysis for treatment toxicities. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 28 months (interquartile range [IQR] 13-75 months) and 38 months (IQR 19-73 months) for WM (n = 131) and HR (n = 84) groups, respectively. Overall survival (OS) was not significantly different between groups (median OS: HR 49 vs. WM 32 months; P = .08). There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS), freedom from locoregional recurrence (LRR), or freedom from distant metastasis (P > .2 for all). Field size was not associated with OS, PFS, or LRR (P > .40 for all). LRR rates were 20% for HR and 26% for WM groups (P = .30). There was no significant difference in patterns of initial site of LRR between groups (P > .1). WM fields (OR 3.73, P = .001) and concurrent chemotherapy (odds ratio 3.62, P = .001) were associated with grade ≥2 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Locoregional control and survival rates were similar between PORT groups; an improved toxicity profile was observed in the HR group. Results from an ongoing prospective randomized clinical trial will provide further insight into the consequences of HR PORT fields.

Development, implementation, and outcomes of a simulation-based medical education (SBME) prostate brachytherapy workshop for radiation oncology residents.

PURPOSE: Despite a preponderance of data demonstrating strong clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness, prostate brachytherapy use and competency continue to decline. Enhanced resident education may help reverse this trend. We therefore developed and implemented a simulation-based medical education course for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 1-week LDR-PB course comprised four 1-h lectures on clinical outcomes, physics, radiobiology, and anatomy/contouring, followed by a 4.5-h simulation session on ultrasound-guided prostate phantom implantation, was developed for radiation oncology residents at an academic institution. A 10-statement Likert-scale survey and 20-question multiple-choice test were administered 1 week before and 4 weeks after the course. RESULTS: Precourse and postcourse instruments were completed by 24 and 20 residents, respectively. The median number of prior LDR-PB cases after at least one genitourinary rotation was 10.5 (range 5-20). Overall mean test scores were significantly improved (55% before the course vs 68% after the course; p = 0.010). Mean Likert scores significantly increased on nine of 10 survey statements and were significantly increased overall (2.4 before the course vs 3.3 after the course, p < 0.001). When asked about interest in performing brachytherapy after residency, 37.5% of residents "agreed" or "strongly agreed" before the course vs 50% after the course (p = 0.41). Those with higher postresidency brachytherapy interest (scores of 4-5 vs 1-3) had significantly more LDR-PB cases (11.2 vs 5.3 cases; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A 1-week simulation-based medical education course for LDR-PB can improve didactic performance and self-reported technical competence/confidence, and may increase overall enthusiasm for brachytherapy. Future studies at our institution will incorporate evaluation of implant quality and assessment of procedural competence into this framework. Residency programs should dedicate resources to this essential component of radiation oncology.

Survival in Patients With Brain Metastases: Summary Report on the Updated Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment and Definition of the Eligibility Quotient.

PURPOSE: Conventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility. METHODS: A multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively. RESULTS: Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation (P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non-small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Median survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).

Evaluating single-institution resource costs of consolidative radiotherapy for oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer using time-driven activity-based costing.

BACKGROUND: Consolidative radiotherapy (RT) has been shown to improve overall survival in oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as demonstrated by a growing number of prospective trials. OBJECTIVE: We quantified the costs of delivery of consolidative RT for common clinical pathways associated with treating oligometastatic NSCLC, by applying time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology. METHODS: Full cycle costs were evaluated for 4 consolidative treatment regimens: (Regimen #1) 10-fraction 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as palliation of a distant site; (#2) 15-fraction intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) to the primary thoracic disease; (#3) 15-fraction IMRT to the primary plus 4-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to a single oligometastatic site; and (#4) 15-fraction IMRT to the primary plus two courses of 4-fraction SABR for two oligometastatic sites. RESULTS: For each of the four treatment regimens, personnel represented a greater proportion of total cost when compared with equipment, totaling 61.0%, 65.9%, 66.2%, and 66.4% of the total cost of each care cycle, respectively. In total, a 10-fraction regimen of 3D-CRT to a distant site represented just 37.2% of the total cost of the most expensive course. Compared to total costs for 15-fraction IMRT alone, each additional sequential course of 4-fraction SABR imparted a cost increase of 43%. CONCLUSION: This analysis uses TDABC to estimate the relative internal costs of various RT strategies associated with treating oligometastatic NSCLC. This methodology will become increasingly relevant to each organization in context of the anticipated mandate of alternative/bundled payment models for radiation oncology by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Thoracic Radiation Oncology Clinical Trial Accrual and Reasons for Nonenrollment: Results of a Large, Prospective, Multiyear Analysis.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials are considered the gold standard in evidence-based medicine, yet few patients with cancer ultimately enroll. Here we examine patients screened for thoracic radiation oncology clinical trials to better understand enrollment trends. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prospective database tracking screening and enrollment for patients referred for thoracic radiation oncology consultation at our institution from 2016 to 2019 was evaluated. Proportional enrollment rates, patient and disease characteristics, self-reported socioeconomic factors, and reasons for ineligibility or nonenrollment across 17 radiation therapy trials were compared. RESULTS: Enrollment data on 2372 patients were available for analysis. Of these patients, 40.0% (949) were deemed "not eligible" (NE) for any trial or were unwilling to be further screened. Reasons for ineligibility included stage (44%), histology (13%), radiation therapy not indicated (12%), patient decision (7%), and enrollment in a competing medical or surgical oncology trial (5%). The remaining 60.0% (1423) were "potentially eligible" (PE) for one or more trials. Most had non-small cell lung cancer (71%) or esophageal cancer (16%), and there were significantly fewer stage IV PE (29%) versus NE (49%) patients (P < .0001). Of 2372 patients, 281 (11.9%) enrolled. Notable reasons for nonenrollment were inclusion and exclusion criteria (58%), patients declining enrollment (14%), and physician decision (5%). The proportion of white patients was higher in the PE versus NE group (82.5% vs 75.8%; P < .001). Additionally, white race (87.9% vs 81.2%; P = .008), English language preference (96.4% vs 92.9%; P = .032), and non-Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (94.0% vs 90.1%; P = .042) were significantly different in enrolled versus nonenrolled PE patients. CONCLUSIONS: Only 12% of patients screened for radiation therapy trials ultimately enrolled, and more than two-thirds had no trial available or were found ineligible. In addition, 19% of potential eligible patients did not enroll because the patient or physician declined. Future trials may benefit from pragmatic designs with more inclusive enrollment criteria and multidisciplinary engagement of referring providers.

SABR for Skull Base Malignancies: A Systematic Analysis of Set-Up and Positioning Accuracy.

PURPOSE: Here we provide an analysis of the set-up and positioning accuracy of SABR for skull base malignancies to evaluate the use of site- or axis-specific margins to reduce field size. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data were prospectively collected on 63 patients who received 304 fractions of SABR for recurrent/previously irradiated skull base tumors. Using our custom cushion-mask-bite-block immobilization system combined with ExacTrac x-ray and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), set-up, residual, CBCT-positioning agreement, and intrafractional errors were measured. The resulting planning target volume (PTV) margins were estimated across 4 skull base subsites: anterior (group 1), central (group 2), posterolateral (group 3), and skull base-associated sites (eg, nasopharynx/retropharyngeal, cervical vertebrae 1-2, occiput) (group 4). RESULTS: On initial set-up, 66% of treatment courses required shifts of >2 mm or >2°, necessitating 4.9 mm PTV margins without image guidance. After correction, only 6 of 304 treatment sessions had residual errors >1 mm. CBCT-ExacTrac agreement was ≤1 mm in 89.1% of treatments and ≤1.5 mm in all but 1 session. Group 4 showed a higher rate of >1 mm or >1° CBCT-positioning differences compared with other groups (24.5% vs 7.8%; P = .0001), and the greatest variations occurred in the craniocaudal translational and the pitch rotational axes. Overall calculated PTV margins (based on intrafractional error) were 1.5 mm across subsites except for group 4, which required 2.0 mm margins. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 2.0 mm PTV margins for skull base SABR appears feasible using ExacTrac x-ray as the sole imaging modality for most subsites. However, PTVs were not uniformly equal, and the use of a site-specific nonuniform margin reduction to optimize critical-organ dose sparing may be feasible for select cases. These findings warrant clinical investigation.

Beyond an Updated Graded Prognostic Assessment (Breast GPA): A Prognostic Index and Trends in Treatment and Survival in Breast Cancer Brain Metastases From 1985 to Today.

PURPOSE: Brain metastases are a common sequelae of breast cancer. Survival varies widely based on diagnosis-specific prognostic factors (PF). We previously published a prognostic index (Graded Prognostic Assessment [GPA]) for patients with breast cancer with brain metastases (BCBM), based on cohort A (1985-2007, n = 642), then updated it, reporting the effect of tumor subtype in cohort B (1993-2010, n = 400). The purpose of this study is to update the Breast GPA with a larger contemporary cohort (C) and compare treatment and survival across the 3 cohorts. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multi-institutional (19), multinational (3), retrospective database of 2473 patients with breast cancer with newly diagnosed brain metastases (BCBM) diagnosed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, was created and compared with prior cohorts. Associations of PF and treatment with survival were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared with log-rank tests. PF were weighted and the Breast GPA was updated such that a GPA of 0 and 4.0 correlate with the worst and best prognoses, respectively. RESULTS: Median survival (MS) for cohorts A, B, and C improved over time (from 11, to 14 to 16 months, respectively; P < .01), despite the subtype distribution becoming less favorable. PF significant for survival were tumor subtype, Karnofsky Performance Status, age, number of BCBMs, and extracranial metastases (all P < .01). MS for GPA 0 to 1.0, 1.5-2.0, 2.5-3.0, and 3.5-4.0 was 6, 13, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Between cohorts B and C, the proportion of human epidermal receptor 2 + subtype decreased from 31% to 18% (P < .01) and MS in this subtype increased from 18 to 25 months (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: MS has improved modestly but varies widely by diagnosis-specific PF. New PF are identified and incorporated into an updated Breast GPA (free online calculator available at brainmetgpa.com). The Breast GPA facilitates clinical decision-making and will be useful for stratification of future clinical trials. Furthermore, these data suggest human epidermal receptor 2-targeted therapies improve clinical outcomes in some patients with BCBM.

Disease-Related Outcomes and Toxicities of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy After Lung-Sparing Pleurectomy for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: This review explores the use of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) after lung-sparing surgery in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Because severe toxicities have been documented after radiation therapy for MPM, its use remains controversial, especially as modern surgical management has shifted toward lung-sparing pleurectomy/decortication. IMRT is an advanced technique that may allow for safer radiation therapy delivery, but there remains limited data (including no summative data) to support this notion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a systematic review evaluating the safety and efficacy of post-pleurectomy IMRT (P-IMRT). A systematic review of PubMed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted for publications of all dates that specifically reported clinical outcomes and/or toxicities of P-IMRT in patients with MPM. Ten original studies were included in this review. RESULTS: The incidence of grade 3 pneumonitis ranged from 0% to 16%, with all but 2 studies reporting rates below 9%. Grade 4 and 5 pneumonitis were observed in less than 1.5% of cases, except in one publication that used hypofractionated radiation therapy to doses >60 Gy. Crude local failure rates ranged from 19% to 60%, median progression free survival ranged from 12 to 16 months, and median overall survival ranged from 19 to 28 months. CONCLUSIONS: P-IMRT produces relatively few higher-grade toxicities and has reasonable disease-related outcomes, especially when delivered using conventionally fractionated regimens to doses of 45 to 54 Gy and exercising careful attention to dose constraints during treatment planning. IMRT can thus be considered in well-selected patients in whom adequate survival after pleurectomy is expected. These data also support the initiation of the phase III NRG-LU006 trial of extended pleurectomy/decortication and chemotherapy with or without IMRT.

Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for pulmonary metastases: Improving overall survival and identifying subgroups at high risk of local failure.

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) is an emerging treatment option for patients with pulmonary metastases; identifying patients who would benefit from SABR can improve outcomes. MATERIALS & METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed local failure (LF), distant failure (DF), overall survival (OS), and toxicity in 317 patients with 406 pulmonary metastases treated with SABR in January 2006-September 2017 at a tertiary cancer center. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 23 months. Primary adrenal, colorectal, sarcoma, or pancreatic ("less responsive") tumors led to high rates of LF. LF rates for patients with less responsive vs. responsive tumors were 4.6% vs. 1.6% at 12 months and 12.8% vs. 3.9% at 24 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.73; Log-Rank P = 0.0087). A nomogram for 24-month local control was created using Cox multivariate factors (surgical history, planning target volume, primary disease site, lung lobe location). Treating patients with ≤3 pulmonary metastases vs. >3 pulmonary metastases was associated with improved 24-month (74.2% vs. 59.3%) and 48-month (47.7% vs. 35.1%) OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.95; Log-Rank P = 0.043), and reduced 12-month (22.5% vs. 50.8%) and 24-month (31.8% vs. 61.4%) intrathoracic DF (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.74; Log-Rank P < 0.0001). The most common toxicity was asymptomatic pneumonitis (14.8%). Six patients had grade 3 events (5 pneumonitis, 1 brachial plexus). CONCLUSIONS: SABR for pulmonary metastases was effective and well tolerated. Irradiating limited intrathoracic sites of disease led to improved OS and intrathoracic DM. Higher SABR doses or surgery could be considered for less radio-responsive primary tumors.

Estrogen/progesterone receptor and HER2 discordance between primary tumor and brain metastases in breast cancer and its effect on treatment and survival.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment is based on estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). At the time of metastasis, receptor status can be discordant from that at initial diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of discordance and its effect on survival and subsequent treatment in patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). METHODS: A retrospective database of 316 patients who underwent craniotomy for BCBM between 2006 and 2017 was created. Discordance was considered present if the ER, PR, or HER2 status differed between the primary tumor and the BCBM. RESULTS: The overall receptor discordance rate was 132/316 (42%), and the subtype discordance rate was 100/316 (32%). Hormone receptors (HR, either ER or PR) were gained in 40/160 (25%) patients with HR-negative primary tumors. HER2 was gained in 22/173 (13%) patients with HER2-negative primary tumors. Subsequent treatment was not adjusted for most patients who gained receptors-nonetheless, median survival (MS) improved but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 17-28 mo, P = 0.12; HER2, 15-19 mo, P = 0.39). MS for patients who lost receptors was worse (HR, 27-18 mo, P = 0.02; HER2, 30-18 mo, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Receptor discordance between primary tumor and BCBM is common, adversely affects survival if receptors are lost, and represents a missed opportunity for use of effective treatments if receptors are gained. Receptor analysis of BCBM is indicated when clinically appropriate. Treatment should be adjusted accordingly. KEY POINTS: 1. Receptor discordance alters subtype in 32% of BCBM patients.2. The frequency of receptor gain for HR and HER2 was 25% and 13%, respectively.3. If receptors are lost, survival suffers. If receptors are gained, consider targeted treatment.

Estimating PTV Margins in Head and Neck Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) Through Target Site Analysis of Positioning and Intrafractional Accuracy.

PURPOSE: Recurrent or previously irradiated head and neck cancers (HNC) are therapeutically challenging and may benefit from high-dose, highly accurate radiation techniques, such as stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR). Here, we compare set-up and positioning accuracy across HNC subsites to further optimize the treatment process and planning target volume (PTV) margin recommendations for head and neck SABR. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We prospectively collected data on 405 treatment fractions across 79 patients treated with SABR for recurrent/previously irradiated HNC. First, interfractional error was determined by comparing ExacTrac x-ray to the treatment plan. Patients were then shifted and residual error was measured with repeat x-ray. Next, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was compared with ExacTrac for positioning agreement, and final shifts were applied. Lastly, intrafractional error was measured with x-ray before each arc. Results were stratified by treatment site into skull base, neck/parotid, and mucosal. RESULTS: Most patients (66.7%) were treated to 45 Gy in 5 fractions (range, 21-47.5 Gy in 3-5 fractions). The initial mean ± standard deviation interfractional errors were -0.2 ± 1.4 mm (anteroposterior), 0.2 ± 1.8 mm (craniocaudal), and -0.1 ± 1.7 mm (left-right). Interfractional 3-dimensional vector error was 2.48 ± 1.44, with skull base significantly lower than other sites (2.22 vs 2.77; P = .0016). All interfractional errors were corrected to within 1.3 mm and 1.8°. CBCT agreed with ExacTrac to within 3.6 mm and 3.4°. CBCT disagreements and intrafractional errors of >1 mm or >1° occurred at significantly lower rates in skull base sites (CBCT: 16.4% vs 50.0% neck, 52.0% mucosal, P < .0001; intrafractional: 22.0% vs 48.7% all others, P < .0001). Final PTVs were 1.5 mm (skull base), 2.0 mm (neck/parotid), and 1.8 mm (mucosal). CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck SABR PTV margins should be optimized by target site. PTV margins of 1.5 to 2 mm may be sufficient in the skull base, whereas 2 to 2.5 mm may be necessary for neck and mucosal targets. When using ExacTrac, skull base sites show significantly fewer uncertainties throughout the treatment process, but neck/mucosal targets may require the addition of CBCT to account for positioning errors and internal organ motion.

Commercial Insurance Coverage of Advanced Radiation Therapy Techniques Compared With American Society for Radiation Oncology Model Policies.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare and contrast the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) model policies (MPs) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR), and proton beam therapy (PBT) with the coverage policies constructed by 5 of the largest publicly available commercial insurers throughout the United States (ie, Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana, and United Healthcare). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Appropriate indications for IMRT, SRS, SABR, and PBT by disease site (and particular clinical setting thereof) were extracted from the most recently published ASTRO MPs and published coverage policies (2019 editions) of the 5 carriers. After tabulation, concordance between ASTRO MPs and insurance policies were calculated for each modality. RESULTS: All 5 insurer policies supported IMRT for neoplasms of the central nervous system, head/neck, hepatopancreaticobiliary, anal, and prostate cancers. The least covered diseases were retroperitoneal tumors (n = 0 carriers) and bladder cancer (n = 1). For SRS, all carriers covered benign brain tumors, brain metastases, arteriovenous malformations, and trigeminal neuralgia. None of the insurance carriers covered SRS for medically refractory epilepsy. For SABR, primary liver, lung, and low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were covered by all insurers, and none allowed SABR for primary biliary neoplasms. Only one insurance carrier each covered SABR for primary/metastatic adrenal disease and primary renal cancer. All carriers approved PBT for ocular melanoma, skull base tumors, and pediatric malignancies. The ASTRO MPs listed 4 PBT scenarios (ie, spinal disease, retroperitoneal sarcoma, head/neck neoplasms, and patients with genetic radiosensitivity syndromes) not covered by any insurer. Concordance between insurance carriers and ASTRO MPs was 67.8% for IMRT, 72.0% for SRS, 58.4% for SABR, and 41.8% for PBT (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Coverage guidelines for IMRT, SRS, SABR, and PBT vary across 5 major insurance providers and may be substantially discordant compared with ASTRO coverage guidelines. There remain several specific areas where ongoing and future dialogues between ASTRO members, payers, and policymakers remain essential.

Time-Driven, Activity-Based Cost Analysis of Radiation Treatment Options for Spinal Metastases.

PURPOSE: Several treatment options for spinal metastases exist, including multiple radiation therapy (RT) techniques: three-dimensional (3D) conventional RT (3D-RT), intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), and spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS). Although data exist regarding reimbursement differences across regimens, differences in provider care delivery costs have yet to be evaluated. We quantified institutional costs associated with RT for spinal metastases, using a time-driven activity-based costing model. METHODS: Comparisons were made between (1) 10-fraction 3D-RT to 30 Gy, (2) 10-fraction IMRT to 30 Gy, (3) 3-fraction SSRS (SSRS-3) to 27 Gy, and (4) single-fraction SSRS (SSRS-1) to 18 Gy. Process maps were developed from consultation through follow-up 30 days post-treatment. Process times were determined through panel interviews, and personnel costs were extracted from institutional salary data. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource, then multiplied by activity time to calculate costs, which were summed to determine total cost. RESULTS: Full-cycle costs of SSRS-1 were 17% lower and 17% higher compared with IMRT and 3D-RT, respectively. Full-cycle costs for SSRS-3 were only 1% greater than 10-fraction IMRT. Technical costs for IMRT were 50% and 77% more than SSRS-3 and SSRS-1. In contrast, personnel costs were 3% and 28% higher for SSRS-1 than IMRT and 3D-RT, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Resource utilization varies significantly among treatment options. By quantifying provider care delivery costs, this analysis supports the institutional resource efficiency of SSRS-1. Incorporating clinical outcomes with such resource and cost data will provide additional insight into the highest value modalities and may inform alternative payment models, operational workflows, and institutional resource allocation.

Spine Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Metastatic Pheochromocytoma.

PURPOSE:  Despite aggressive primary treatment, up to 13.5% of patients diagnosed with pheochromocytoma may develop metastases, most often affecting the axial skeleton. Given that systemic therapy options are often inadequate, local therapy remains the cornerstone of palliation for these patients. Historically poor responses to standard fractionated radiotherapy have led to the consideration of stereotactic radiosurgery as an option to overcome potential radioresistance and provide durable local control of these tumors. Here we report our institutional experience in treating spine metastases from pheochromocytoma with spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Our clinical databases were retrospectively reviewed for patients with metastatic pheochromocytoma treated with SSRS from 2000-2017. Seven patients with 16 treated metastatic spinal lesions were identified. Local control was evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Pain and symptom data were assessed to evaluate toxicity using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess local control and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median follow-up for treated lesions was 11 months (range 2.2 - 70.8). Most lesions were treated to a dose of 27 Gy in three fractions (62.5%). Other fractionation schemes included 24 Gy in one fraction (25%), 16 Gy in one fraction (6.3%), and 18 Gy in three fractions (6.3%). Treatment sites included the cervical spine (18.8%), thoracic spine (37.5%), lumbar spine (31.3%), and sacrum (12.5%). The crude local control rate was 93.7%, with one thoracic spine lesion progressing 20.7 months after treatment with 24 Gy in one fraction. Kaplan-Meier OS rates at 1 and 2 years after SSRS were 71.4% and 42.9%, respectively. Most common toxicities included acute grade 1-2 pain and fatigue. There was one case of vertebral fracture in a cervical spine lesion treated to 27 Gy in three fractions, which was managed non-surgically. CONCLUSION: Very few studies have explored the use of SSRS in metastatic pheochromocytoma. Our data suggest this modern radiation modality is effective, safe, and provides durable local control to palliate symptoms and potentially limit further metastatic seeding. Larger patient numbers and longer follow-up will further define the role of SSRS as a treatment option in these patients.

Quantifying institutional resource utilization of adjuvant brachytherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for endometrial cancer via time-driven activity-based costing.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the cost of resources required to deliver adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) for high- to intermediate-risk endometrial cancer using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Comparisons were made for three and five fractions of vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB), 28 fractions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and combined modality RT (25-fraction IMRT followed by 2-fraction VCB). Process maps were developed representing each phase of care. Salary and equipment costs were obtained to derive capacity cost rates, which were multiplied by process times and summed to calculate total costs. Costs were compared with 2018 Medicare physician fee schedule reimbursement. RESULTS: Full cycle costs for 5-fraction VCB, IMRT, and combined modality RT were 42%, 61%, and 93% higher, respectively, than for 3-fraction VCB. Differences were attributable to course duration and number of fractions/visits. Accumulation of cost throughout the cycle was steeper for VCB, rising rapidly within a shorter time frame. Personnel cost was the greatest driver for all modalities, constituting 76% and 71% of costs for IMRT and VCB, respectively, with VCB requiring 74% more physicist time. Total reimbursement for 5-fraction VCB was 40% higher than for 3-fractions. Professional reimbursement for IMRT was 31% higher than for 5-fraction VCB, vs. IMRT requiring 43% more physician TDABC than 5-fraction VCB. CONCLUSIONS: TDABC is a feasible methodology to quantify the cost of resources required for delivery of adjuvant IMRT and brachytherapy and produces directionally accurate costing data as compared with reimbursement calculations. Such data can inform institution-specific financial analyses, resource allocation, and operational workflows.