Use of Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Breast Cancer in 2019 Versus 2020.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted medical care. Little is known about how radiation therapy (RT) ordering behavior changed during the pandemic. This study examined (1) whether there was a change in the rate at which orders for lumpectomy were followed by orders for RT and (2) whether there was a change in the percentage of RT orders for hypofractionated (HF) RT rather than conventionally fractionated (CF) RT. Methods and Materials: Prior authorization order data from 2019 and 2020, pertaining to patients with commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans, were reviewed to determine whether patients had an order for RT in the 90 days after lumpectomy and if it was for CF or HF RT. Univariate analyses were conducted using χ2 tests, and adjusted analyses were conducted using multivariate logistic regression, controlling for patient age, urbanicity, local median income, region, if the lumpectomy facility was academic, and if the lumpectomy facility was a hospital. Results: In 2019, 47.7% of included lumpectomy orders (2200/4610) were followed by an RT order within 90 days, in contrast to 45.6% (1944/4263) in 2020 (P = .048). Of the RT orders meeting this study's definition of CF or HF, 75.3% of orders placed in 2019 (1387/1843) and 79.0% of orders placed in 2020 (1261/1597) were for HF (P = .011). Adjusted analysis found patients receiving a lumpectomy order in the first quarter of 2020 had significantly reduced odds (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99) of receiving an order for RT after lumpectomy, relative to those with orders placed in the first quarter of 2019. Adjusted analysis likewise found significant evidence of increased use of HF RT during the pandemic. Conclusions: In the population examined, physicians were less likely to order RT after lumpectomy in 2020 than in 2019, and if they did, were more likely to order HF RT.

An assessment of the association between patient characteristics and timely lung cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Prior data have demonstrated relationships between patient characteristics, the use of surgery to treat lung cancer, and the timeliness of treatment. Our study examines whether these relationships were observable in 2019 in patients with Medicare Advantage health plans being treated for lung cancer. METHODS: Claims data pertaining to patients with Medicare Advantage health plans who had received radiation therapy (RT) or surgery to treat lung cancer within 90 days of diagnostic imaging were extracted. Other databases were used to determine patients' demographics, comorbidities, the urbanicity of their ZIP code, the median income of their ZIP code, and whether their treatment was ordered by a physician at a hospital. Multivariable logistic and Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to assess the association between patient characteristics, receipt of surgery, and time to non-systemic treatment (surgery or RT), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 2,682 patients were included in the analysis. In an adjusted analysis, patients were significantly less likely to receive surgery if their first ordering physician was based in a hospital, if they were older, if they had a history of congestive heart failure (CHF), if they had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or if they had stage III lung cancer. Likewise, having stage III cancer was associated with significantly shorter time to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within a Medicare Advantage population, patient demographics were found to be significantly associated with the decision to pursue surgery, but factors other than stage were not significantly associated with time to non-systemic treatment.

Lung Cancer Treatment Trends During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Claims and Order Data Analysis (2019-2021).

Introduction: Lung cancer is treated using systemic therapy, radiation therapy (RT), and surgery. This study evaluates how utilization of these modalities and cancer stage at initial treatment shifted from 2019 to 2021. Methods: Claims for lung cancer treatment were extracted from the database of a national health care organization offering Medicare Advantage health plans and paired with enrollment data to determine utilization rates. Seasonally adjusted rates were trended, with monotonicity evaluated using Mann-Kendall tests. Using contemporaneous prior authorization order data, the association between year and the patient's cancer stage at the time of the initial RT or surgery order was evaluated through univariable and multivariable analyses. Results: The study considered 140.9 million beneficiary-months of data. There were negative and significantly monotonic trends in utilization of RT (p = 0.033) and systematic therapy (p = 0.003) for initial treatment between January 2020 and December 2021. Analysis of RT and surgery order data revealed that the patients were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely to have advanced (stage III or IV) cancer at the time of their surgery order in 2020 and 2021 than in 2019. After adjusting for urbanicity, age, and local income, a significant relationship between year of the initial order and presence of advanced cancer at the time of ordering was found for surgery orders placed in 2020 (p < 0.001) and 2021 (p < 0.01), but not for RT orders. Conclusions: There was a per-capita reduction in lung cancer treatment in 2020 and 2021, and patients receiving initial orders for surgery after the onset of the pandemic had more advanced cancer.

An assessment of the association between patient race and prior authorization program determinations in the context of radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: When a physician determines that a patient needs radiation therapy (RT), they submit an RT order to a prior authorization program which assesses guideline-concordance. A rule-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) evaluates whether the order is appropriate or potentially non-indicated. If potentially non-indicated, a board-certified oncologist discusses the order with the ordering physician. After discussion, the order is authorized, modified, withdrawn, or recommended for denial. Although patient race is not captured during ordering, bias prior to and during ordering, or during the discussion, may influence outcomes. This study evaluated if associations existed between race and order determinations by the CDSS and by the overall prior authorization program. METHODS: RT orders placed in 2019, pertaining to patients with Medicare Advantage health plans from one national organization, were analyzed. The association between race and prior authorization outcomes was examined for RT orders for all cancers, and then separately for breast, lung, and prostate cancers. Analyses controlled for the patient's age, urbanicity, and the median income in the patient's ZIP code. Adjusted analyses were conducted on unmatched and racially-matched samples. RESULTS: Of the 10,145 patients included in the sample, 8,061 (79.5%) were White and 2,084 (20.5%) were Black. Race was not found to have a significant association with CDSS or prior authorization outcomes in any of the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: CDSS and prior authorization outcomes suggested similar rates of clinical appropriateness of orders for patients, regardless of race. IMPLICATIONS: Prior authorization utilizing rule-based CDSS was capable of enforcing guidelines without introducing racial bias.

NCCN Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care.

Quality measurement is a critical component of advancing a health system that pays for performance over volume. Although there has been significant attention paid to quality measurement within health systems in recent years, significant challenges to meaningful measurement of quality care outcomes remain. Defining cost can be challenging, but is arguably not as elusive as quality, which lacks standard measurement methods and units. To identify industry standards and recommendations for the future, NCCN recently hosted the NCCN Oncology Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care. Key stakeholders including physicians, payers, policymakers, patient advocates, and technology partners reviewed current quality measurement programs to identify success and challenges, including the Oncology Care Model. Speakers and panelists identified gaps in quality measurement and provided insights and suggestions for further advancing quality measurement in oncology. This article provides insights and recommendations; however, the goal of this program was to highlight key issues and not to obtain consensus.

The Association Between Use of Hypofractionation and Treatment Completion Among Recipients of Radiation Therapy Post-Mastectomy.

PURPOSE: Although there is some evidence to support the use of hypofractionated (HF) radiation therapy (RT) postmastectomy, it is not currently the standard of care. RT noncompletion and delayed completion have been shown to lead to inferior outcomes. This study assesses the association between the choice of an HF versus conventionally fractionated regimen and completion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RT orders placed in 2016 and 2017 for patients with a national health plan, along with the associated claims, were extracted. Each order was assigned a target date for timely completion, as well as a date 30 days after the target, which was used to assess delayed completion. Univariate analyses and logistic regressions were conducted to test for an association between regimen and completion. A Poisson regression was used to examine the association between regimen and length of treatment delay among patients completing RT. RESULTS: Of the 743 orders meeting inclusion criteria, 56 (7.5%) were for HF. Unadjusted analyses found that the timely and delayed completion rates were significantly (P < .001) higher for patients receiving HF. The adjusted odds ratios (HF order versus CF order) were 3.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.23-7.01) for timely completion and 2.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.43-5.15) for completion within 30 days of the target. Among completers, an order for HF was significantly (P < .001) associated with less delay. CONCLUSIONS: When an HF regimen was ordered, patients were more likely to complete therapy without a delay, to complete therapy overall, and, if experiencing a delay, to experience a shorter delay.

Presentation at computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax and first year diagnostic and treatment utilization among patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: As Medicare expands the use of computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing lung cancer, there is increased opportunity to diagnose lung cancer in asymptomatic patients. This descriptive study characterizes the disease-specific diagnostic and treatment services that patients with a positive diagnosis following CT received, stratified by presentation at CT. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer following CT in 2013, had no history of lung cancer, survived at least 1 year, were aged 55-80 years, and had Medicare Advantage insurance were included. Patients were grouped based upon presentation at CT: morbidities unrelated to lung cancer, classic lung cancer symptoms, and cancer syndromes. Patients with none of these factors were categorized into a no diagnoses/symptoms group. The type and intensity of services used in the year following the CT was reported for each group. RESULTS: 1,261 patients were included. Early treatment services were most common in the group with morbidities unrelated to lung cancer (13.7%) and least common in the cancer syndromes group (6.6%). Advanced treatment services were used by 47.3% of the cancer syndromes group versus 23.5% of the no diagnoses/symptoms group. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of disease-specific diagnostic and treatment services varied by presentation at CT. Patients with no symptoms or morbidities at the time of CT less frequently received advanced interventions. Learning about the utilization patterns of others with a similar presentation at CT may help patients with positive lung cancer diagnoses engage in shared decision making and in norming their experiences against those of other similarly-situated patients.

Do Case Rates Affect Physicians' Clinical Practice in Radiation Oncology?: An Observational Study.

Case rate payments combined with utilization monitoring may have the potential to improve the quality of care by reducing over and under-treatment. Thus, a national managed care organization introduced case rate payments at one multi-site radiation oncology provider while maintaining only fee-for-service payments at others. This study examined whether the introduction of the payment method had an effect on radiation fractions administered when compared to clinical guidelines. The number of fractions of radiation therapy delivered to patients with bone metastases, breast, lung, prostate, and skin cancer was assessed for concordance with clinical guidelines. The proportion of guideline-based care ascertained from the payer's claims database was compared before (2011) and after (2013) the payment method introduction using relative risks (RR). After the introduction of case rates, there were no significant changes in guideline-based care in breast, lung, and skin cancer; however, patients with bone metastases and prostate cancer were significantly more likely to have received guideline-based care (RR = 2.0 and 1.1, respectively, p<0.05). For the aggregate of all cancers, the under-treatment rate significantly declined (p = 0.008) from 4% to 0% after the introduction of case rate payments, while the over-treatment rate remained steady at 9%, with no significant change (p = 0.20). These findings suggest that the introduction of case rate payments did not adversely affect the rate of guideline-based care at the provider examined. Additional research is needed to isolate the effect of the payment model and assess implications in other populations.