国家综合癌症网络指南纳入1级证据对转移性脊柱疾病随机对照试验患者拒绝保险的影响

IF 1.2 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy Pub Date : 2024-12-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5603/rpor.102822
Ulysses G Gardner, Melissa M Brately, Raed J Zuhour, Yilun Sun, Daniel E Spratt, Shearwood McClelland
{"title":"国家综合癌症网络指南纳入1级证据对转移性脊柱疾病随机对照试验患者拒绝保险的影响","authors":"Ulysses G Gardner, Melissa M Brately, Raed J Zuhour, Yilun Sun, Daniel E Spratt, Shearwood McClelland","doi":"10.5603/rpor.102822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The primary treatment of metastatic spine disease is radiation therapy (RT), traditionally conventional external beam RT (EBRT) or stereotactic body RT (SBRT). Until recently, there had been no Level 1 evidence supporting SBRT over EBRT, which has led to difficulties obtaining insurance approval. Publication of the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing SBRT to EBRT for spine metastases [Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG)] helped change this. The results showed superiority of SBRT in pain response; however, the results were not cited by The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) until March 24, 2023. We present results from an ongoing RCT to assess the impact of this NCCN inclusion on insurance denials for trial-eligible patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The ongoing SPORTSMEN RCT randomizes metastatic spine cancer patients to SBRT versus EBRT. Trial-eligible patients during the first six months were examined to assess if SBRT was denied by insurance before March 24, 2023, versus afterwards. Fisher's exact test was used to assess for statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prior to CCTG NCCN inclusion, 25% of 12 trial-eligible patients experienced SBRT insurance denial. Following NCCN inclusion, of 8 patients, one (12.5%) has undergone insurance denial of SBRT. These differences were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The inclusion of Level 1 evidence in the NCCN guidelines has resulted in a numerical halving of spine SBRT insurance denials on a RCT, with the small sample size likely the largest culprit of not meeting statistical significance. These findings illustrate the importance of generating high-quality evidence, followed by timely inclusion into the NCCN guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":47283,"journal":{"name":"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy","volume":"29 5","pages":"657-660"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11698557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Inclusion of Level 1 Evidence on Insurance Denial for Randomized Controlled Trial Patients with Metastatic Spine Disease.\",\"authors\":\"Ulysses G Gardner, Melissa M Brately, Raed J Zuhour, Yilun Sun, Daniel E Spratt, Shearwood McClelland\",\"doi\":\"10.5603/rpor.102822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The primary treatment of metastatic spine disease is radiation therapy (RT), traditionally conventional external beam RT (EBRT) or stereotactic body RT (SBRT). Until recently, there had been no Level 1 evidence supporting SBRT over EBRT, which has led to difficulties obtaining insurance approval. Publication of the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing SBRT to EBRT for spine metastases [Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG)] helped change this. The results showed superiority of SBRT in pain response; however, the results were not cited by The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) until March 24, 2023. We present results from an ongoing RCT to assess the impact of this NCCN inclusion on insurance denials for trial-eligible patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The ongoing SPORTSMEN RCT randomizes metastatic spine cancer patients to SBRT versus EBRT. Trial-eligible patients during the first six months were examined to assess if SBRT was denied by insurance before March 24, 2023, versus afterwards. Fisher's exact test was used to assess for statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prior to CCTG NCCN inclusion, 25% of 12 trial-eligible patients experienced SBRT insurance denial. Following NCCN inclusion, of 8 patients, one (12.5%) has undergone insurance denial of SBRT. These differences were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The inclusion of Level 1 evidence in the NCCN guidelines has resulted in a numerical halving of spine SBRT insurance denials on a RCT, with the small sample size likely the largest culprit of not meeting statistical significance. These findings illustrate the importance of generating high-quality evidence, followed by timely inclusion into the NCCN guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"29 5\",\"pages\":\"657-660\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11698557/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5603/rpor.102822\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/rpor.102822","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:转移性脊柱疾病的主要治疗方法是放射治疗(RT),传统的外束放疗(EBRT)或立体定向体放疗(SBRT)。直到最近,还没有一级证据支持SBRT优于EBRT,这导致难以获得保险批准。第一项比较SBRT和EBRT治疗脊柱转移的随机对照试验(RCT)的发表[加拿大癌症试验组(CCTG)]帮助改变了这一点。结果显示,SBRT在疼痛反应方面具有优势;然而,直到2023年3月24日,这些结果才被美国国家综合癌症网络(NCCN)引用。我们介绍了一项正在进行的随机对照试验的结果,以评估纳入NCCN对符合试验条件的患者拒绝保险的影响。材料和方法:正在进行的SPORTSMEN随机对照试验将转移性脊柱癌患者随机分为SBRT和EBRT两组。在前六个月内对符合试验条件的患者进行检查,以评估SBRT是否在2023年3月24日之前被保险拒绝,而不是之后。使用Fisher精确检验来评估统计显著性。结果:在CCTG纳入NCCN之前,12名符合试验条件的患者中有25%经历了SBRT保险拒绝。在纳入NCCN后,8例患者中有1例(12.5%)经历了SBRT的保险拒绝。这些差异没有统计学意义。结论:在NCCN指南中纳入1级证据导致RCT中脊柱SBRT保险拒绝数量减半,小样本量可能是不符合统计显著性的最大罪魁祸首。这些发现说明了产生高质量证据的重要性,随后及时纳入NCCN指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Inclusion of Level 1 Evidence on Insurance Denial for Randomized Controlled Trial Patients with Metastatic Spine Disease.

Background: The primary treatment of metastatic spine disease is radiation therapy (RT), traditionally conventional external beam RT (EBRT) or stereotactic body RT (SBRT). Until recently, there had been no Level 1 evidence supporting SBRT over EBRT, which has led to difficulties obtaining insurance approval. Publication of the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing SBRT to EBRT for spine metastases [Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG)] helped change this. The results showed superiority of SBRT in pain response; however, the results were not cited by The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) until March 24, 2023. We present results from an ongoing RCT to assess the impact of this NCCN inclusion on insurance denials for trial-eligible patients.

Materials and methods: The ongoing SPORTSMEN RCT randomizes metastatic spine cancer patients to SBRT versus EBRT. Trial-eligible patients during the first six months were examined to assess if SBRT was denied by insurance before March 24, 2023, versus afterwards. Fisher's exact test was used to assess for statistical significance.

Results: Prior to CCTG NCCN inclusion, 25% of 12 trial-eligible patients experienced SBRT insurance denial. Following NCCN inclusion, of 8 patients, one (12.5%) has undergone insurance denial of SBRT. These differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions: The inclusion of Level 1 evidence in the NCCN guidelines has resulted in a numerical halving of spine SBRT insurance denials on a RCT, with the small sample size likely the largest culprit of not meeting statistical significance. These findings illustrate the importance of generating high-quality evidence, followed by timely inclusion into the NCCN guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
115
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy is an interdisciplinary bimonthly journal, publishing original contributions in clinical oncology and radiotherapy, as well as in radiotherapy physics, techniques and radiotherapy equipment. Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy is a journal of the Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, the Czech Society of Radiation Oncology, the Hungarian Society for Radiation Oncology, the Slovenian Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the Polish Study Group of Head and Neck Cancer, the Guild of Bulgarian Radiotherapists and the Greater Poland Cancer Centre, affiliated with the Spanish Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and the Portuguese Society of Radiotherapy - Oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信