Role of simulation-based training and assessment to improve brachytherapy competency among radiation oncology residents.

Simulation is a technique used in healthcare to replicate clinical scenarios and improve patient safety, efficacy, and efficiency. Simulation-based medical education facilitates training and assessment in healthcare without increasing risk to patients, supported by ample evidence from surgical/procedural specialties. Simulation in radiation oncology has been leveraged to an extent, with successful examples of both screen-based and hands-on simulators that have improved confidence and performance in trainees. In the current era, evidence substantiates a significant deficit in brachytherapy procedure education, with radiation oncology residents reporting low confidence in this procedural skill, largely attributable to insufficient caseloads at some centers. Simulation-based medical education can facilitate structured training and competency-based assessment in brachytherapy skills. This review discusses existing advances and future directions in brachytherapy simulation, using examples from simulation in surgical specialties.

A Medicare Claims Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Access to Radiation Therapy Services.

PURPOSE: Reduced access and utilization of radiation therapy (RT) is a well-documented healthcare disparity observed among racial and ethnic minority groups in the USA and a contributor to the inferior health outcomes observed among Black, Hispanic, and Native American patient groups. What is less understood are the points during the process of care following RT consultation at which patients either fail to complete their prescribed treatment or encounter delays. Identification of those points where significant differences exist among different patient groups may help identify opportunities to close gaps in the access of clinically indicated RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This analysis examines 261,559 RT episodes abstracted from Medicare claims and beneficiary data between 2016 and 2018 to determine rates of treatment initiation following planning and timeliness of treatment completion for different racial groups. RESULTS: Failure to initiate treatment was observed to be 29.3% relatively greater for Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients than for White and Asian patients. Among episodes for which treatment was initiated, Black and Hispanic patients were observed to require a significantly greater number of calendar days (when adjusted for fraction number) for completion than for White, Asian, and Native American patients. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a patient cohort for which RT disparities may be more marginal in their effects-allowing for access to consultation and treatment prescription but not for treatment initiation or timely completion of treatment-and may therefore permit effective solutions to help address current differences in cancer outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ultra-Hypofractionated Whole Breast Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Hormone Therapy Alone or Combined Treatment for Low-Risk ER-Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer in Women Aged 65 Years and Older.

PURPOSE: The optimal management of early-stage, low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer in older women remains controversial. Recent trials have shown that 5-fraction ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (U-WBI) has similar outcomes to longer courses, reducing the cost and inconvenience of treatment. We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare U-WBI to hormone therapy alone or their combination. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We simulated 3 different treatment approaches for women age 65 years or older with pT1-2N0 ER-positive invasive ductal carcinoma treated with lumpectomy with negative margins using a Markov microsimulation model. The strategies were U-WBI performed with a 3-dimensional conformal technique over 5 fractions without a boost ("radiation therapy [RT] alone"), adjuvant hormone therapy (anastrozole for 5 years) without RT ("aromatase-inhibitor [AI] alone"), or the combination of the 2. The combination strategy was calibrated to match trial results, and the relative effectiveness of the RT alone and AI alone strategies were inferred from previous randomized trials. The primary endpoint was the cost-effectiveness of the 3 strategies over a lifetime horizon as measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a value of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year deemed "cost-effective." RESULTS: The model results compared with the prespecified target outcomes. On average, RT alone was the least expensive strategy ($14,775), with AI alone slightly more ($14,998), and combination therapy the costliest ($19,802). RT alone dominated AI alone (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] -$5089). Combination therapy, compared with RT alone, was slightly more expensive than our definition of cost-effective (ICER $113,468) but was cost-effective compared with AI alone (ICER $54,451). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated RT alone to be cost-effective in 50% of trials, with combination therapy in 36% and AI alone in 14%. CONCLUSIONS: U-WBI alone appears the more cost-effective de-escalation strategy for these low-risk patients, compared with AI alone. Combining U-WBI and AI appears more costly but may be preferred by some patients.

Radiation Therapy Expenditures Through the First 8 Performance Periods of the Oncology Care Model at a Statewide Multispecialty Health System.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to use real world data to assess trends in radiation therapy (RT) treatment fractionation and cost under the Oncology Care Model (OCM) through the first 8 performance periods (PPs). METHODS: We identified 17,157 episodes of care from 9898 patients treated at a statewide multispecialty health system through the first 8 6-month PPs (PP1-8: July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020) of the OCM. Spending was stratified by 10 expenditure domains (eg, Part B/D drugs, radiation oncology [RO], etc), and 21 disease sites were extracted from claims data, from which an analysis of RO expenditures was performed on 2219 episodes from 2033 patients treated with RT. Expenses are expressed in per-beneficiary, per-episode terms. RESULTS: RO expenditures comprised 3% ($14.7M) of total spending over the 8 periods. By primary cancer, the largest RO expenses were for breast ($2.9M; 20%), prostate ($2.9M; 19%), and lung cancer ($2.8M; 13%). For RO, total per-episode average spending remained roughly constant between PP1 ($6314) and PP8 ($6664; Ptrend > .05) and decreased ($6314-$6215) when indexed to the Consumer Price Index for July 2016. Average number of RT fractions per episode decreased from 19.2 in PP1 to 18.6 in PP8; this decrease was most notably seen for breast (-2.1), lung (-2.8), and female genitourinary (-3.5) cancers. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) charges accounted for $7.6M (51%) of RT spending and increased 5% from PP1 to 8, whereas conventional external beam RT made up $3.0M (21%) and decreased 8%. Expenses for image guidance ($2.5M; 17%; +2% from PP1-8) and stereotactic RT ($1.3M; 9%; +1%) increased. CONCLUSIONS: In inflation-adjusted terms, total RO expenditures have declined despite greater use of IMRT, stereotactic RT, and image guidance. Conversely, oncology costs have risen because of drug spending. Successful payment models must prioritize high-cost spending areas-including novel drug therapies-while accounting for high-value care and patient outcomes.

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.

A primer on time-driven activity-based costing in brachytherapy.

Emphasis on value-based healthcare has led to increasing use of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) across medical departments. When applied to brachytherapy, TDABC provides insight into differences in costs across various modes of therapy, the nuances that drive cost including institutional factors and involved personnel, and discrepancies in reimbursement which influence clinical practice. This is especially important with the new alternative payment model (APM) in radiation oncology which offers fixed reimbursement per 90-day episode of care. The TDABC model can thus be utilized to improve efficiency, optimize the role of ancillary staff in treatment planning and care delivery, and implement shorter fraction schedules when clinically appropriate to promote value-based care. Ultimately, application of this methodology could potentiate changes to practice and incentives to improve patient care. In this review, we discuss the utility and limitations of TDABC in the context of existing studies in brachytherapy which have utilized this methodology.

Improving efficiency and reducing costs of MRI-Guided prostate brachytherapy using Time-Driven Activity-Based costing.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated quality improvement (QI) and cost reduction strategies can help increase value in cancer care. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is a bottom-up costing tool that measures resource use over the full care cycle. We applied standard QI and TDABC methods to improve workflow efficiency and reduce costs for MRI-guided prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We constructed process maps of the baseline prostate brachytherapy workflow from initial consultation through one year after treatment. Process maps reflected resources and time required at each step. TDABC costs were calculated by multiplying each process time by the cost per min of the resource(s) used at that step. We then used plan-do-study-act methodology to identify workflow inefficiencies and implement solutions to reduce resource consumption. RESULTS: The highest cost components at baseline were the operating room (OR) (40%), imaging (8.7%), and consultation (7.6%). Higher-than-expected costs (3%) were incurred during surgery scheduling. After targeted QI initiatives, OR time was reduced from 90 to 70 min, which reduced overall cost by 5%. Personnel task downshifting reduced costs by 10% at consultation and 77% at surgery scheduling. Re-engineering of follow-up protocols reduced costs by 8.4%. Costs under the new workflow decreased by 18.2%. CONCLUSIONS: TDABC complements traditional QI initiatives by quantifying the highest cost steps and focusing QI initiatives to reduce costs and improve efficiency. As payment reform evolves toward bundled payments, TDABC and QI initiatives will help providers understand, communicate, and improve the value of cancer care.

Impact of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on Brachytherapy Reimbursement.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (RO Model) will test prospective radiotherapy episode-based payments for 16 common disease sites. We created an automated analytics platform to calculate the impact of the RO Model vs historical fee-for-service episode reimbursements for brachytherapy treatments within five community oncology practices for prostate, uterine, and cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Claims data between January 1, 2017 and October 2, 2019 for prostate, uterine, and cervical cancer were analyzed as per the RO Model Final Rule methodology. Expected professional and technical component (PC and TC) reimbursements were compared for episodes that utilized brachytherapy alone vs combination modality (external beam and brachytherapy) in the RO Model vs historical reimbursements. RESULTS: 6,022 RO Model-defined episodes (60% prostate, 28% uterine, 13% cervical) were generated. Brachytherapy monotherapy episodes (14%) would have an average positive reimbursement in the RO Model (+$2,163 for prostate, +$711 for uterine, +$533 for cervical for the PC; +$12,168 for prostate, +$8,181 for uterine, +$11,322 for cervical for the TC), while combination modality episodes (15%) would have an average negative reimbursement in the RO Model (-$183 for prostate, -$1,701 for uterine, -$2,195 for cervical for the PC; -$374 for prostate, -$5,026 for uterine, -$2,801 for cervical for the TC). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy monotherapy episodes for prostate, uterine, and cervical cancer will benefit from an increase in payment, whereas combination modality episodes will receive lower reimbursement. Large shifts in episodic payment may be related to practice-wide adjustments and pricing based on partial episodes of care that may ultimately limit access to care for vulnerable patient populations with cancer.

Geographic access to brachytherapy services in the United States.

PURPOSE: Disparities in geographic access to medical care exist in nearly all fields of medicine including radiation oncology. We aim to update knowledge of the geographic distribution of radiation oncologists in the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used the Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (PUF) from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Directory of Radiotherapy Centers (DIRAC) database to identify practices that either coded for or are marked as having access to brachytherapy services. Geographic analysis was performed on several levels including United States (US) Census region, Dartmouth Atlas Healthcare Referral Region, and the county level. RESULTS: We identified 327 providers that billed for a brachytherapy code during the calendar year 2018 and 564 facilities providing brachytherapy. Within the 306 HRRs in the US, 149 have access to brachytherapy. This represents 247.5 million people based on 2018 estimates of population from the US Census Bureau. This implies that 76.7% of people within the US live in an HRR with access to brachytherapy, and, conversely, that 75.3 million people (23.3%) do not. Numerically, counties in metropolitan areas were more likely to have access to brachytherapy than those outside of a metropolitan area. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic disparities exist in access to brachytherapy; metropolitan counties are more likely to have access than non-metropolitan counties. We support continued development of databases of brachytherapy providers and programs that may support travel and lodging costs to minimize these disparities.

American Brachytherapy Society radiation oncology alternative payment model task force: Quality measures and metrics for brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Brachytherapy is an essential technique to deliver radiation therapy and is involved in the treatment of multiple disease sites as monotherapy or as an adjunct to external beam radiation therapy. With a growing focus on the cost and value of cancer treatments as well as new payment models, it is essential that standardized quality measures and metrics exist to allow for straightforward assessment of brachytherapy quality and for the development of clinically significant and relevant clinical data elements. We present the American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement on quality measures and metrics for brachytherapy as well as suggested clinical data elements. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Members of the American Brachytherapy Society with expertise in disease site specific brachytherapy created a consensus statement based on a literature review and clinical experience. RESULTS: Key quality measures (ex. workup, clinical indications), dosimetric metrics, and clinical data elements for brachytherapy were evaluated for each modality including breast cancer, cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, prostate cancer, keratinocyte carcinoma, soft tissue sarcoma, and uveal melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement provides standardized quality measures and dosimetric quality metrics as well as clinical data elements for each disease site to allow for standardized assessments of brachytherapy quality. Moving forward, a similar paradigm can be considered for external beam radiation therapy as well, providing comprehensive radiation therapy quality measures, metrics, and clinical data elements that can be incorporated into new payment models.

Socioeconomic and Racial Determinants of Brachytherapy Utilization for Cervical Cancer: Concerns for Widening Disparities.

PURPOSE: Cervical cancer (CC) disproportionately affects minorities who have higher incidence and mortality rates. Standard of care for locally advanced CC involves a multimodality approach including brachytherapy (BT), which independently improves oncologic outcomes. Here, we examine the impact of insurance status and race on BT utilization with the SEER database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 7,266 patients with stage I-IV CC diagnosed from 2007 to 2015 were included. BT utilization, overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 3,832 (52.7%) received combined external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + BT, whereas 3,434 (47.3%) received EBRT alone. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, increasing age (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98 to 0.99; P < .001); Medicaid (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.88; P < .001), uninsured (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.80; P < .001), and unknown versus private insurance (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.86; P < .001); Black (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.77; P < .001) and unknown versus White race (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.77; P = .047); and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.24; P = .36), stage III (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P = .006), stage IV (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.40; P < .001), and unknown stage versus stage I (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.45; P < .001) were associated with decreased BT utilization. When comparing racial survival differences, the 5-year OS was 44.2% versus 50.9% (P < .0001) and the 5-year DSS was 55.6% versus 60.5% (P < .0001) for Black and White patients, respectively. Importantly, the racial survival disparities resolved when examining patients who received combined EBRT + BT, with the 5-year OS of 57.3% versus58.5% (P = .24) and the 5-year DSS of 66.3% versus 66.6% (P = .53) for Black and White patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates notable inequities in BT utilization for CC that particularly affects patients of lower insurance status and Black race, which translates into inferior oncologic outcomes. Importantly, the use of BT was able to overcome racial survival differences, thus highlighting its essential value.

Disproportionate Negative Impact of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on Rural Providers: A Cost Identification Analysis of Medicare Claims.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (APM) is a Medicare demonstration project that will test whether prospective bundled payments to a randomly selected group of physician practices, hospital outpatient departments, and freestanding radiation therapy centers reduce overall expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality of care for beneficiaries. The Model follows a complicated pricing methodology that blends historical reimbursements for a defined set of services made to professional and technical providers to create a weighted payment average for each of 16 cancer types. These averages are then adjusted by various factors to determine APM payments specific to each participating provider. METHODS: This impact study segregates APM participants into rural and urban groups and analyzes the effect of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on their fee-for-service reimbursements. RESULTS: The main findings of this study are (1) the greater net-negative revenue impact on rural facilities versus urban facilities that would have participated in the Model this year and (2) the relative lack of high-value treatment services (ie, stereotactic radiotherapy and brachytherapy) delivered by rural facilities that exacerbates their negative impact. CONCLUSION: As such, rural providers participating in the Model in its current form may face greater risk to their economic viability and greater difficulty in funding technology improvements necessary for the achievement of high-quality care compared with their urban counterparts.

Radiation Oncology's Place in Payment Reform: ASTRO Advocates for a Place at the Table.

In its current form, the Radiation Oncology Model (RO Model) prioritizes payment cuts over true value-based payment transformation. With significant modifications to the payment methodology, the reporting requirements, and recognition of the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged populations, the RO Model can protect patient access to care, preserve the physician-patient decision-making process, and ensure the delivery of high-quality, efficient radiation therapy treatment. The American Society for Radiation Oncology has spent several years advocating for a meaningful alternative payment model for radiation oncology and continues to push The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation for changes to the RO Model that will recognize these key outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date.

PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is associated with less toxicity relative to conventional photon radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC). Upfront delivery costs are greater, but PBT can provide superior long-term value by minimizing treatment-related complications. Cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) estimate the relative value of novel technologies (such as PBT) as compared with the established standard of care. However, the uncertainties of CEMs can limit interpretation and applicability. This review serves to (1) assess the methodology and quality of pertinent CEMs in the existing literature, (2) evaluate their suitability for guiding clinical and economic strategies, and (3) discuss areas for improvement among future analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was queried for CEMs specific to PBT for HNC. General characteristics, modeling information, and methodological approaches were extracted for each identified study. Reporting quality was assessed via the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 24-item checklist, whereas methodologic quality was evaluated via the Philips checklist. The Cooper evidence hierarchy scale was employed to analyze parameter inputs referenced within each model. RESULTS: At the time of study, only 4 formal CEMs specific to PBT for HNC had been published (2005, 2013, 2018, 2020). The parameter inputs among these various Markov cohort models generally referenced older literature, excluding many clinically relevant complications and applying numerous hypothetical assumptions for toxicity states, incorporating inputs from theoretical complication-probability models because of limited availability of direct clinical evidence. Case numbers among study cohorts were low, and the structural design of some models inadequately reflected the natural history of HNC. Furthermore, cost inputs were incomplete and referenced historic figures. CONCLUSION: Contemporary CEMs are needed to incorporate modern estimates for toxicity risks and costs associated with PBT delivery, to provide a more accurate estimate of value, and to improve their clinical applicability with respect to PBT for HNC.

Activity-Based Costing of Intensity-Modulated Proton versus Photon Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: In value-based health care delivery, radiation oncologists need to compare empiric costs of care delivery with advanced technologies, such as intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to compare the costs of delivering IMPT and IMRT in a case-matched pilot study of patients with newly diagnosed oropharyngeal (OPC) cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used clinicopathologic factors to match 25 patients with OPC who received IMPT in 2011-12 with 25 patients with OPC treated with IMRT in 2000-09. Process maps were created for each multidisciplinary clinical activity (including chemotherapy and ancillary services) from initial consultation through 1 month of follow-up. Resource costs and times were determined for each activity. Each patient-specific activity was linked with a process map and TDABC over the full cycle of care. All calculated costs were normalized to the lowest-cost IMRT patient. RESULTS: TDABC costs for IMRT were 1.00 to 3.33 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (mean ± SD: 1.65 ± 0.56), while costs for IMPT were 1.88 to 4.32 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (2.58 ± 0.39) (P < .05). Although single-fraction costs were 2.79 times higher for IMPT than for IMRT (owing to higher equipment costs), average full cycle cost of IMPT was 1.53 times higher than IMRT, suggesting that the initial cost increase is partly mitigated by reductions in costs for other, non-RT supportive health care services. CONCLUSIONS: In this matched sample, although IMPT was on average more costly than IMRT primarily owing to higher equipment costs, a subset of IMRT patients had similar costs to IMPT patients, owing to greater use of supportive care resources. Multidimensional patient outcomes and TDABC provide vital methodology for defining the value of radiation therapy modalities.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of No Adjuvant Therapy Versus Partial Breast Irradiation Alone Versus Combined Treatment for Treatment of Low-Risk DCIS: A Microsimulation.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ who undergo partial mastectomy remains controversial, particularly for low-risk patients (60 years or older, estrogen-positive, tumor extent < 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2, and margins ≥ 3 mm). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three strategies: no adjuvant treatment after surgery, a five-fraction course of accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (accelerated partial breast irradiation [APBI]-alone), or APBI plus an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes including local recurrence, distant metastases, and survival as well as toxicity data were modeled by a patient-level Markov microsimulation model, which were validated against trial data. Costs of treatment and possible adverse events were included from the societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on utilities extracted from the literature. RESULTS: No adjuvant therapy was the least costly approach ($5,744), followed by APBI-alone ($11,070); combined therapy was costliest ($16,052). Adjuvant therapy resulted in slightly higher QALYs (no adjuvant, 11.320; APBI-alone, 11.343; and combination, 11.381). In the base case, no treatment was the cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $239,109/QALY for APBI-alone and $171,718/QALY for combined therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for combined therapy compared with APBI-alone was $131,949. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that no therapy was cost effective (defined as $100,000/QALY of lower) in 63% of trials, APBI-alone in 19%, and the combination in 18%. CONCLUSION: No adjuvant therapy represents the most cost-effective approach for postmenopausal women 60 years or older who receive partial mastectomy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ.