Clinical Policy Title: Proton Beam Therapy Clinical Policy Number: 05.02.01 Effective Date: Initial Review Date: Most Recent Review Date: Next Review Date: December 1, 2013 August 21, 2013 Sept. 18, 2013 August, 2014 Policy contains: • Proton therapy; • Particle or hadron therapy; • Cancer; • Brain AVM. Lines of Business: AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans clinical policies are subject to all applicable laws and government regulatory requirements of the geographical areas served. Refer to the pertinent government and plan documents for each geographical area for guidance. Individual member benefits must be verified. Policy Definition: AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans covers health care service/items when they are medically necessary and not prohibited from coverage by state or federal laws and/or regulatory requirements. This AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans clinical policy addresses the medical evidence supporting the use of proton therapy. AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans considers the use of Proton Beam Therapy to be clinically proven as the effectiveness of its use has been established in peer reviewed professional literature. These clinical policies, along with other sources, such as plan benefits and state and federal laws and regulatory requirements, including any State or plan specific definition of medically necessary, are considered by AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans when making coverage determinations. Coverage Policy: AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans considers the use of Proton Beam Therapy to be clinically proven; and therefore, a finding of medical necessity is supported when the following criteria are met: • Solid tumors with documentation of rationale for consideration of Proton Beam Therapy rather than conventional treatments. • Be In one of the following categories: o in children up to age 18: primary and variant forms of medulloblastoma; astrocytoma; glioblastoma--OR o benign or malignant tumors of the base of the skull or axial skeleton –OR— 1 o Benign or malignant primary and secondary tumors of the brain and spinal cord—OR-o acoustic neuroma craniopharyngioma –OR-o Pituitary and pineal gland tumors;--OR-o intraocular melanoma; o Metastases to the brain for which standard radiation therapy is not appropriate; o Soft tissue sarcoma for which standard radiation therapy is not appropriate. AND • Patient-specific documentation (with imaging studies and details for any previous treatments) providing the rationale for proton therapy as the treatment of choice versus conventional approaches may be provided, AND • Research protocol participation: IRB-approved studies requiring informed consent. A finding of medical necessity is not supported for all other uses of Proton Beam Therapy Limitations: • Hematogenous malignancies, e.g., leukemias and lymphomas, are not eligible. • Case-by-case decisions for metastases with documentation as for primary lesions as above. Alternative Covered Services: Standard surgical therapies, radiation therapies and chemotherapies as appropriate for the clinical condition. Intensity modulated radiation (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiation (3DCR), both covered in Table 1 reviews and the glossaries (pages 5-7) are now the standards for conventional radiotherapy in cancer. Background: Proton beam therapy: a form of radiotherapy which uses beams of charged sub-atomic particles in contrast to the photon beams of conventional radiation (X-rays). Proton beams have potential benefits for the treatment of tumors in cases where surgical excision is deemed impossible or unacceptably risky. The first published use of proton beam therapy was in 1954, however the extremely high cost of producing charged particles inhibited its widespread use. Trikalinos (AHRQ; 2009) reports seven US centers for proton therapy and an additional four under construction, at costs per center of $100 to $225 million. 2 Proton therapy is classified among particle or hadron therapies, which have different properties than X-rays. Theoretical advantages of particle beams include more precise delivery of higher doses to tumor targets and less exposure to surrounding tissues: in other words, more effective cancer treatment with fewer adverse effects. Due to the large investment for building a proton therapy facility, treatment costs are higher than with conventional radiation. It is therefore important to evaluate whether the medical benefits of proton therapy are large enough to balance the higher costs. Proton beam therapy is not suitable to all tumor types but may be of particular benefit treating superficial lesions (such as those of the eye), intermediate depth lesions (such as the head and neck), and for tumors where conventional radiotherapy would damage surrounding tissue to an unacceptable level (optical nerve, spinal cord, central nervous system, head, neck, and prostate). In addition, proton beam may be ideal for use in pediatric patients. This policy focuses on adult cancers or brain arteriovenous malformations. Study types consulted in preparing this policy: Systematic reviews pool results (quantitatively in a meta-analysis or qualitatively) from multiple studies to achieve larger sample sizes and greater precision of effect estimation than in smaller primary studies. Systematic reviews use pre-determined transparent methods to minimize bias: effectively treating the review as a scientific endeavor, thus are rated highest in evidence grading hierarchies. Economic analyses (cost-effectiveness, -benefit or -utility studies, which report both costs and outcomes; but not simple cost studies), sometimes referred to as efficiency studies, also rank near the top of evidence hierarchies. Economic analyses may be attempted and even published during developmental stages of new healthcare technologies/interventions, but are generally premature before definitive information on effectiveness is available. Table 1 presents systematic reviews and economic analyses published (as of August 2013) for proton therapy and Table 2 other coverage policies. Table 1: Systematic reviews/guidelines and economic analyses for proton beam therapy: reverse chronological order and then alphabetically by first author Citation Content Cancer reviews Hayes Inc. (2013) Ramaekers (2010) Proton beam for prostate cancer: • abstracts provide conflicting evidence; • Full text review not conducted for this publication and pending status not noted. • No CMS coverage decisions identified. Radiotherapy (IMRT, carbon ion, or proton) in head and neck cancers: • 1990-2010: English-language clinical studies with ≥10 subjects; 3 Citation Content • • • • • Cancers: naso-pharyngeal; oro-pharyngeal; para-nasal; sino-nasal; mucosal melanoma; adeno-cystic carcinoma; Ns with each stage, radiation dose, mean/median age, and proportion receiving chemotherapy varied among studies; Reporting of adverse effects varied; 86 observational studies; 8 comparative; Ns, 10-323. Inclusion of small observational studies and overall heterogeneity of studies may have adversely effected reliability. Main results: • Carbon ions associated with longer survival for mucosal melanoma Vs protons; • Tumor control and survival similar for IMRT and protons except for para- and sino-nasal. • Carbon-ions and protons associated with lower toxicity rates than IMRT. Bauman (Cancer Intensity modulated radiation therapy in prostate cancer: Care Ontario; 2010) • 2000- Mar, 2009; • Systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessments, randomized Phase II or III trials; • ≥50 patients reported in English; • IMRT recommended over 3DCRT for localized prostate cancer where dose escalation (>70 Gy) is required; • Insufficient evidence for post-operative use. Flynn (2010) Are there cancer diagnoses for which rigorous research has shown proton therapy to be effective? • Systematic reviews, guidelines, or technology assessments: searches updated to April 2010 for subsequently-published and review eligible studies to confirm or refute conclusions of published reviews; • 12 reviews on a variety of cancers: lung; base of skull; ocular; prostate; head and neck; and on brain AVMs; • Reviews concur: most published studies are observational; • Only prostate cancer and uveal melanoma represented by CCTs with serious methods weaknesses; • Economic evaluations premature; • Overall: insufficient evidence for effectiveness. Grutters (2010) Radiotherapy with photons, protons and carbon ions for non-small cell lung cancer: • 1994-Aug 2008; • Studies with ≥ 20 patients published in English or Dutch and 4 Citation Content reporting two- or five-year survival by stage and adverse events; • 30 studies (n = 2611); five for proton (180); all case series without controls; • Survival with particle therapy higher than conventional radiation for stage I inoperable; may reduce adverse events in Stage III. • Further RCT evidence needed. Grutters (2010a) CEA: particle therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: • Decision analytic Markov model to synthesize “all available evidence” (Grutters, 2010; row above) for inoperable Stage I NSCLC • Inoperable stage I: carbon-ion cost €67.257/QALY gained compared to SRS; • Considerable uncertainty to results: more evidence is needed. Trikalinos (AHRQ; Particle beam radiation therapies for cancer: • Medline, -July 2009: 2009) • any study design; • > 10 subjects and describing outcomes or adverse events; • English; German; French; Italian; Japanese. • 243 eligible studies; proton alone or in combination with other interventions for common (prostate) or uncommon cancers (skull base or uveal melanoma); • N, 10-2645; median 63; • FU, 5-157 months; median 36. • 9 non-randomized comparisons reported in 13 papers with 4086 unique patients; • Overall: no study found particle therapy significantly better than alternatives for patient-relevant outcomes. Subsequently published cancer review (section above) eligible Yu (2013) Cross-sectional: • All Medicare patients with prostate cancer receiving proton or IMRT, 2008-9; • Multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with receipt of proton; • 27,647 men: 2% received proton, 98% IMRT; • Proton patients: younger, healthier, from more affluent areas than IMRT; • Median reimbursement: proton, $32,428; IMRT, $18,575; • Proton associated with significantly lower genitor-urinary toxicity at six months: 5.9% Vs 9.5% (OR, 0.60; CI, 0.38-0.96); no difference at 12 months. • NS differences in GI or other toxicity at 6 or 12 months. 5 Citation Content Brain AVMs Van Beijnum (2011) Brain AVMs: • 2000- March 2011; • Consecutive case series with≥ 15 patients of any age receiving microsurgery, stereotactic radio-surgery, or embolization; • English; French; German; Italian; or Spanish language and reporting: length of FU; rates of post-op hemorrhage and death; Ross (Cochrane; 2010) Main results: • 137 studies with 142 cohorts (13,698 subjects with 46,314 patientyears FU); • No RCTs published or included; • Case fatality: o Microsurgery, 1.1(CI, 0.87-1.3)/100 patient-years FU; o Stereotactic radio-surgery, 0.50 (CI, 1.5-1.8); o Embolization, 1.7 (1.3-2.3); • Complications leading to permanent neurologic deficits or death: o Microsurgery, median 7.4% (range 0-40); o SRS, 5.1% (0-21); o Embolization, 6.5% (0-28); • AVM obliteration: o Microsurgery, 96% (0-100); o SRS, 38% (0-75) o Embolization, 13% (0-94); • Insufficient evidence and too much variation among studies for valid conclusions. Interventions for brain AVMs in adults: • 1980-Nov 2009; • RCTs comparing interventions against each other or with usual medical management and reporting relevant clinical outcomes ( partial obliteration or total eradication); One ongoing/unpublished RCT (ARUBA; enrolling patients with AVMs that never bled) meets selection criteria; two others (one published; one not) tested embolic procedures against each other but did not report outcomes required for this review. 6 Table 2: Other guidelines/coverage Citation Content CMS L29263 (2011) Proton beam radiotherapy: In general, not indicated for widely disseminated cancers (hematogenous primary or metastases as in leukemia) or as a short-term palliative procedure. Group 1 conditions: • Benign or malignant conditions otherwise not suitable for IMRT or 3DCR: base of skull or axial skeleton but not limited to chordoma or chohdroscararcoma; • Solid tumors in children up to age 16: primary and variant forms of medulloblastoma; astrocytoma; glioblastoma; AVMs; acoustic neuroma craniopharyngioma; benign and atypicalmeningiomas; pineal gland tumors; intraocular melanoma; • Many radiological oncologists believe proton an option where IMRT or 3DCR is medically necessary, so this contractor will consider it reasonable for Group #2 ICD-9-CM codes when criteria below are met (1, 2, or 3) AND (5 or 6; with 6 mandatory): 1. Dose constraints to normal tissues limit total dose safely deliverable to tumor by other means. 2. Reason to believe that doses thought to be above those attainable by by other means may improve tumor control. 3. Higher precision associated with proton beam is clinically relevant. 4. Primary tumors: Curative intent. 5. Metastatic lesions: expectation of long-term (≥ 2 years) benefit unobtainable with conventional therapy; and expectation of complete eradication of the lesion otherwise not obtainable. 6. Mandatory: the patient record documents why proton is considered treatment of choice for this individual. Additional provisions: As above AND • Patient treated in a protocol designed for evidence development or future publication that is expected to support an outcome advantage for Medicare patients. • Protocol per se not sufficient in absence of Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight and informed consent. Group 2 conditions: • Malignant lesions of head and neck with curative intent; 7 Citation Content • • • • • • • • • • • CMS L31617 (2012) Malignant lesions of para-nasal and other accessory sinus; Malignant lesions of prostate; Advanced stage non-metastatic bladder cancer; Advanced pelvic tumors including cervix; Left breast tumors; Pancreatic and adrenal tumors; Skin cancer with perineural/cranial nerve invasion; Unresectable retroperitoneal and extremity sarcoma; Lung and upper abdominal/peridiaphragmatic cancer; Malignant lesions of liver, biliary tract, anal canal, rectum. Lesions not specified are not covered. Group 1: • Unresectable benign or malignant CNS including but not limited to primary and variant: astrocytoma; gioblastoma; meduloblastoma; acoustic neuroma; craniopharyngioma; meningioma; pineal gland tumors; AVMs; • Intraocular melanoma; • Pituitary tumors; • Chordomas and chondrosarcomas; • Advanced stage unresectable tumors of the head and neck; • Malignant lesions of paranasal sinus and other accessory sinus; • Unresectable retroperitoneal sarcoma; • Solid tumors in children; Group 1 conditions also require documentation: • Dose Volume Histogram demonstrating one or more critical structures to be protected by proton beam; • Dose to control tumor undeliverable within tolerance of normal tissues; • Documented clinical rationale: doses and precision “generally thought otherwise unattainable might improve tumor control.” • Curative intent for primary lesions. • Metastatic lesions: expectation of ≥2 year life expectancy not obtainable by other means. • Treatment of choice for this individual. • Patient treated in a protocol designed for evidence development or future publication that is expected to support an outcome advantage for Medicare patients. • Protocol per se not sufficient in absence of Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight and informed consent. 8 Citation Content Group 2 conditions: • Unresectable lung and upper abdominal/peridiaphragmatic cancers. • Unresectable pelvic tumors including with periaortic nodes and cervix. • Unresectable pancreatic and adrenal tumors. • Skin cancer with macroscopicperineural/cranial nerve or base of skull invasion. • Unresectable cancer of: liver; biliary tract; anal canal; rectum. • Localized, non-metastatic prostate cancer although no good comparative data with external beam, IMRT, or brachytherapy. • T and N staging by CT or MRI; • Dose to control tumor undeliverable within tolerance of normal tissues; • Documented clinical rationale: doses and precision “generally thought otherwise unattainable might improve tumor control.” • Curative intent for primary lesions. • Metastatic lesions: expectation of ≥2 year life expectancy not obtainable by other means. • Treatment of choice for this individual. • Patient treated in a protocol designed for evidence development or future publication that is expected to support an outcome advantage for Medicare patients. • Protocol per se not sufficient in absence of Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight and informed consent. Glossary of terms: Arteriovenous malformation (AVM): an abnormal connection between arterial and venous systems that can occur anywhere in the body but is most dangerous in the brain. While many AVMs cause no symptoms and are discovered only at autopsy, those in the brain can be associated with headaches, epilepsy, hemorrhagic stroke, or death. They are treated by embolization (cutting off the blood supply with a coil, balloon, particle, or glue via catheter), neurosurgery, or radiation. A Cochrane review (Ross, 2010) found no randomized trials to confirm the superiority of any AVM treatment over alternatives. Searches for this policy (August 2013) confirmed that no more recent publications change that conclusion. The single ongoing review-eligible trial [A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain 9 AVMs (ARUBA)] cited by the Cochrane reviewers still not published as of August 10, 2013. ARUBA began in October 2006 and is investigating invasive interventions (endovascular procedures, neurosurgery, or radiotherapy; alone or in combination) versus medical management. The ARUBA protocol available at www.clinicaltrials.gov does not explicitly include proton therapy in the list of invasive procedures. Carcinoma: A malignant and invasive tumor of epithelial (skin or other body surface) cells that spreads by metastasis and can recur after surgery. Chordoma: an uncommon and relatively slow-growing tumor of the brain or brain stem and arising from remnants of an embryonic structure, the notochord, which otherwise disappears during fetal life. Cochrane Collaboration: an international effort by 31,000 clinicians, researchers, and staff, most of whom contribute their time to conducting and updating the highest quality systematic reviews to support informed health care decision making. The collaboration also maintains a large collection of clinical trial records. Reviews and trial records are published as the Cochrane Library. The Collaboration is named for Archie Cochrane (1909-88), a Scottish physician and early proponent for adopting the scientific method (randomized controlled trials) in clinical research. 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3DCRT): computed tomography-based techniques to deliver radiation more accurately and with higher doses. These techniques include the use of conformal particle beams, intensity-modulated photon (X-ray) beams, and proton beams. Conformal photon-beam therapy has become the standard external radiation therapy, although the more technically challenging intensity-modulated radiation is becoming more widely used. Decision analysis: The methods and procedures for formalizing decision making: analyzing options, consequences and uncertainties by probabilities; and often representing the process graphically by a tree, algorithm, or other diagram. In health care policy formulation, metaanalysis (in systematic reviews) decision analysis, and economic evaluation are related methods to quantitatively synthesize information in order to arrive at a summary conclusion, e.g., on efficacy or effectiveness, and to resolve uncertainty about resource allocation (Petitti, 1994). Efficacy Vs. effectiveness: Efficacy is impact on clinical outcomes in a research setting; effectiveness, impact in the less controlled “real world” setting of widespread clinical use. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrate the former but are designed to optimize internal validity rather than generalizeablity to other settings. Gray (Gy): unit of absorbed radiation dose. 10 Hemangioma: a benign tumor of tiny blood vessels (capillaries). They may be present at birth or appear during the first six months. They may occur anywhere in the body, on the skin as “strawberry birth mark” and on structures near the eye may cause vision problems. Many hemangiomas regress spontaneously; for those requiring treatment: steroids , propanolol, or lasers are used with variable effectiveness and adverse effect profiles. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): along with conformal therapy (defined below), radiation oncology techniques developed in the 1990s to capitalize on computers’ abilities to plan radiation delivery more precisely, thus maximizing exposure of tumors while avoiding surrounding tissues. Macular degeneration: a major cause of visual impairment and blindness in older adults, agerelated macular degeneration (ARMD) damages the macula (central area) of the retina and causes central visual field vision loss. ARMD can make it difficult to read or recognize faces, although enough peripheral vision may remain for other activities of daily life. Markov decision process: a mathematical model used in decision analysis Non- small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): referring to microscopic characteristics. Any type of lung cancer other than small cell, including squamous cell, large cell and adenocarcinoma. Lung cancer in never smokers is almost universally NSCLC, the majority adenocarcinoma, versus squamous cell or small cell, which are associated with tobacco use. NSCLCs are relatively insensitive to chemotherapy and are treated by surgery. Sarcoma: a malignant tumor arising from tissues originating as embryonic mesenchyme or mesoderm: bone; cartilage; fat; muscle; vascular; or blood. They are named for the tissues they most closely resemble microscopically and behave with various levels of aggressiveness. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS): a form of radiation treatment that uses a three-dimensional external coordinate system to locate small lesions within the body for intervention. It requires a reliable and stable frame of reference, e.g., bone landmarks with a constant spatial relationship to soft tissues. Hence SRS applications have generally been restricted to the brain although stereotactic breast biopsy is also performed. Ross (Cochrane; 2010) classifies proton therapy among SRS procedures but found no completed RCTs for any brain AVM interventions meeting eligibility criteria for review. 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3DCRT): computed tomography-based techniques to deliver radiation more accurately and with higher doses. These techniques include the use of conformal particle beams, intensity-modulated photon (X-ray) beams, and proton beams. Conformal photon-beam therapy has become the standard external radiation therapy, although the more technically challenging intensity-modulated radiation is becoming more widely used. 11 Particle therapies: external beam radiation with charged subatomic particles such as protons, neutrons, or carbon ions (also known as hadrons), as opposed to X-rays, which use photons (light waves). Performance status: a measure of cancer patients’ general well-being and ability to perform activities of daily living; used in clinical practice and research to estimate: ability to tolerate treatment; appropriate treatment dose; or intensity of palliation. A frequently used adult performance status scale, the Karnofsky score (KPS) runs from 100 (perfect health) to zero (death): Karnofsky score (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Description Normal: no complaints, no sign of disease Normal activity levels; few symptoms or signs of disease Normal activity with some difficulty, some signs or symptoms Caring for self but not capable of normal activity or work Requires some help but can take care of most personal requirements Frequent need for help and medical care Disabled: requires special help and care Severely disabled: hospital admission indicated but no risk of death Very ill: requires urgent admission with supportive measures or treatment Moribund: rapidly progressive fatal disease Quality-adjusted life year (QALY): an outcome measure used in economic analyses; it incorporates both quantity and quality of life gained through treatment. Uveal tract: a collective term for internal structures of the eye: iris; ciliary body; and choroid. Uveal melanoma is a malignant tumor arising from pigmented cells (melanocytes) that produce eye color. Related Policies: AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans Utilization Management Program Description REFERENCES Professional Society Guidelines Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA). Proton beam therapy for the treatment of cancer. Australian Government Department of Health and Aging. June 2006. 12 Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network (ANZHSN). Proton beam therapy for the treatment of neoplasms involving (or adjacent to) cranial structures. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. May 2007. Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network (ANZHSN). Proton beam therapy for the treatment of uveal melanoma. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. May 2007b CMS local coverage determination L29263. Proton beam radiotherapy. Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation(Contractor 0952). Illinois. Oversight Region V. Effective 3/17/2012. CMS local coverage determination L31617. Proton beam radiotherapy. First Coast Service Options (Contractor 09102). Florida. Oversight Region IV. Effective 2/2/2009; revised 10/1/2011. Flynn K, Adams E, Alligood E, Curran S, Lawrence V. Proton therapy for cancer. Veterans Health Administration Office of Patient Care Services. Technology Assessment Program. Boston (MA). April 2010. Hayes, Inc. Proton beam therapy for prostate cancer. Search & summary. March 25, 2013. Jarosek S, Elliott S, Virnig BA. Proton beam radiotherapy in the US Medicare population: growth in use between 2006 and 2009. Proton Beam Radiotherapy. Data Points #10 (prepared by the University of Minnesota DEcIDE Center, under Contract No. HHSA290201000131). Rockville, MD. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2012. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC005 Moran BJ, DeRose P, Merrick G, Hsu IC, Abdel-Wahab M, Arterbery VE, Ciezki JP, Frank SJ, Mphler JL, Roswnthal SA, Rosi CJ, Yamada Y. Expert panel on radiation oncology-prostate.ACR appropriateness criteria®definitive external beam radiation in stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer. [online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR).2007. Rosenzweig KE, Chang JY, Chetty IJ, Decker RH, Ginsburg ME, Kestin LL, Kong PM, Lally BE, Langer CJ, Movsas B, Videtic GMM, Willers H, Expert panel on radiation oncology – Lung. ACR appropriateness criteria®nonsurgical treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer: poor performance status or palliative intent.[online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR); 2012. Peer-reviewed Amichetti M, Cianchetti M, Amelioi D, Enrici RM, Minniti G. Proton therapy in chordoma of the base of the skull: a systematic review. Neurosurgical Review. 2009; 32:403-16. Bauman G, Rumble RB, Chen J, Loblaw A, Warde P. IMRT indications expert panel. The role of IMRT in prostate cancer. Toronto (ON): Cancer Care Ontario (CCO); 2010 Oct 27. 13 Bekelman JE, Hahn SM. The body of evidence for advanced technology in radiation oncology (editorial). Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2013;105(1):6-7. Bekkering G, Rutjes AWS, Vlassov VV, Aebersold DM, von Bremen K, Kleijnen J. The effectiveness and safety of proton radiation therapy for indications of the eye: a systematic review. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie. 2008;185:211-21. Van Beijnum J, van der Worp HB, Buis DR, Al-Shahi SR, Kappelle LJ, Rinkel GJ, van der Sprenkel JW, Vanderop WP, Algra A, Klijn CJ. Treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association.2011;306(18):2011-19. Brada M, Pijls-Johannesma M, de Ruysscher D. Current clinical evidence for proton therapy. Cancer Journal .2009; 15(4):319-24. Efstathiou JA, Gray PJ, Zietman AL. Proton beam therapy and localized prostate cancer: current status and controversies. British Journal of Cancer. 2013;108:1225-30. Grutters JP, Kessels AG, Pils JohannesmaM, De Ruysscher D, Joore MA, Lambin P. Comparison of the effectiveness of radiotherapy with photons, protons and carbon-ions for non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2010; 95(1):32-40. Grutters JP, Pils-Johannesma M, Ruysscher DD, Peeters A, Reimoser S, Severens JL, lambin S, Joore MA. The cost-effectiveness of particle therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: exploring decision uncertainty and areas for future research. Cancer Treatment Reviews. 2010a; 36(6):468-76. Lodge M, Pijls-Johannesma, M, Stirk L, Munro AJ, De Ruysscher D, Jefferson T. A systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hadron therapy in cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology.2007;l83(2):110-22. Lundkvist J, Ekman M, Ericsson SR, Jönsson B, Glimelius B. Proton therapy of cancer: potential clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness. Acta Oncologica. 2005;44: 850-61. Olsen DR, Bruland ØS, Frykholm G, Norderhaug IN. Proton therapy: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2007;83(2):123-32. Petitti DB. Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine. Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics (#24). Oxford University Press. New York. 1994. 14 Pijls-Johannesma M, Grutters JPC, Verhaegen F, Lambin P, de Ruysscher D. Do we have enough evidence to implement particle therapy as standard treatment in lung cancer? A systematic literature review. The Oncologist. 2010.15:93-103. Ramaekers BL, Pils-Johannesma M, Joore MA, van den Ende P, Langendijk JA, Lambin P, Kessels AG, Grutters JP. Systematic review and meta-analysis of radiotherapy in various head and neck cancers: comparing photons, carbon-ions, and protons. Cancer Treatment Reviews. 2011;3793):185-201. Ross J, Al-Shahi SR. Interventions for treating brain arteriovenous malformations in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010, Issue 7. Trikalinos TA, Terasawa T, Ip S, Raman G, Lau J. Particle beam radiation therapies for cancer. Technical brief No. 1. (Prepared by the Tufts Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. HHSA-290-07-10055.)Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Revised November 2009. Yu JB, Soulos PR, Herrin J, Cramer LD, Potosky AL, Roberts KB, Gross CP. Proton versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: patterns of care and early toxicity. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2013; 105(1):25-32. Zirtman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, Rosssi CJ, Miller DW, Adams, JA, Shipley, WU. Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. JAMA. 2005; 294(10) :1233-9. Moran BJ, DeRose P, Merrick G, Hsu IC, Abdel-Wahab M, Arterbery VE, Ciezki JP, Frank SJ, Mphler JL, Roswnthal SA, Rosi CJ, Yamada Y. Expert panel on radiation oncology-prostate.ACR appropriateness criteria®definitive external beam radiation in stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer. [online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR).2007. Rosenzweig KE, Chang JY, Chetty IJ, Decker RH, Ginsburg ME, Kestin LL, Kong PM, Lally BE, Langer CJ, Movsas B, Videtic GMM, Willers H, Expert panel on radiation oncology – Lung.ACR appropriateness criteria®nonsurgical treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer: poor performance status or palliative intent.[online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR);2012. Clinical Trials August 9, 2013: www.clinicaltrials.gov lists 95 in-progress studies for proton beam. One, for age-related macular degeneration, is randomized. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Coverage Determination 15 The CMS web site (www.cms.gov) lists no national coverage determination documents for proton therapy. Local Coverage Determinations: Table 2: CMS 2011 and 2012. Commonly Submitted Codes: Below are the most commonly submitted codes for the service(s)/item(s) subject to this policy. This is not an exhaustive list of codes. Providers are expected to consult the appropriate coding manuals and bill in accordance with those manuals. CPT codes Code Description 77520 Proton treatment delivery; simple 77523 Proton treatment delivery; intermediate 77525 Proton treatment delivery; complex Disclaimer: AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans has developed clinical policies to assist with making coverage determinations. AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans clinical policies are based on guidelines from established industry sources such as Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), State regulatory agencies, the American Medical Association (AMA), medical specialty professional societies, and peer reviewed professional literature. These clinical policies, along with other sources, such as plan benefits and state and federal laws and regulatory requirements, are considered by AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans when making coverage determinations. AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans clinical policies are for informational purposes only and not intended as medical advice or to direct treatment. Physicians and other health care providers are solely responsible for the treatment decisions for their patients. AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans clinical policies are reflective of evidence based medicine at the time of review. As medical science evolves, AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans will update its clinical policies as necessary. AmeriHealth Caritas VIP Plans clinical policies are not guarantees of payment. 16
© Copyright 2024