Search

Purpose: In the United States, brain metastases (BMs) affect 10% to 20% of patients with cancer, presenting a significant health care challenge and necessitating intricate, high-cost treatments. Few studies have explored the comprehensive care cost for BMs, and none have used real insurance claims data. Partnering with a northeastern health care insurer, we investigated the true costs of various brain-directed radiation methods, aiming to shed light on treatment expenses, modalities, and their efficacy., Methods and Materials: We analyzed medical claims from Highmark Health-insured patients in Pennsylvania, Delware, West Virginia, and New York diagnosed with BMs (ICD-10 code C79.31) and treated with radiation from January 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022. Costs for radiation techniques were grouped by specific current procedural terminology claim codes. We subdivided costs into technical and physician components and separated hospital from freestanding costs for some modalities., Results: From January 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022, 1048 Highmark Health members underwent treatment for BMs. Females (n = 592) significantly outnumbered males (n = 456), with an average age of 64.4 years. Each member had, on average, 5.309 claims costing $2015 per claim. Total cost totaled $10,697,749. Per-treatment analysis showed that hippocampal avoidance intensity modulated radiation therapy was the costliest treatment at $47,748, followed by stereotactic radiation therapy at $37,230, linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) at $30,737, Gamma Knife SRS at $30,711, and whole-brain radiation therapy at $5225., Conclusions: Whole-brain radiation therapy was the least costly radiation technique. Similar per-treatment prices for Gamma Knife and linear accelerator SRS support their use in treating BMs. Stereotactic radiation therapy in general was costlier on a per-use basis than SRS, prompting further scrutiny on its frequent use. Hippocampal avoidance intensity modulated radiation therapy was the costliest radiation therapy on a per-use basis by a moderate amount, prompting further discussion about its comparative cost effectiveness against other radiation modalities. This study underscores the importance of multiple considerations in treating BMs, such as tumor control, survival, side effects, and costs., Competing Interests: Author Oralia Dominic was employed by the Highmark Medical Policy Department at the time of manuscript creation. The authors have no other known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Purpose: Brain metastases are a common development in patients with malignant solid tumors. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has a long track record of effectively and safely treating these patients, with some limitations to the use of single fraction SRS based on size and volume. In this study, we reviewed outcomes of patients treated using SRS and fractionated SRS (fSRS) to compare predictors and outcomes of those treatments., Methods and Materials: Two hundred patients treated with SRS or fSRS for intact brain metastases were included. We tabulated baseline characteristics and performed a logistic regression to identify predictors of fSRS. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of survival. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate survival, local failure, and distant failure rates. A receiver operating characteristic curve was generated to determine timepoint from planning to treatment associated with local failure., Results: The only predictor of fSRS was tumor volume >2.061 cm 3 . There was no difference in local failure, toxicity, or survival by fractionation of biologically effective dose. Predictors of worse survival were age, extracranial disease, history of whole brain radiation therapy, and volume. Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified 10 days as potential factor in local failure. At 1 year, local control was 96.48 and 76.92% for those patients treated before or after that interval, respectively ( P  = .0005)., Conclusions: Fractionated SRS is a safe and effective alternative for patients with larger volume tumors not suitable for single fraction SRS. Care should be taken to treat these patients expeditiously as a delay was shown to affect local control in this study., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Purpose: The latest version of the Gamma Knife, the Icon, allows for immobilization with a mask in lieu of the traditional frame during stereotactic radiosurgery. There have been some concerns regarding extent of immobilization during single fraction frameless treatment and potential effect on outcomes. As such, we reviewed outcomes in patients with brain metastases treated in a single fraction using either a frame or mask on the Gamma Knife Icon at our institution., Methods and Materials: We reviewed the records of 95 patients with a total of 374 metastases treated between May 2019 and January 2021. Thirty-nine patients (41%) were treated using the Leksell frame with the remainder being immobilized with a mask. The median number of metastatic lesions was 2 (1-20). The median prescription dose was 20 Gy (11.5-24 Gy). Odds ratios were generated to identify predictors of mask use. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate survival, local failure, and distant failure rates. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of survival. Propensity matching was used to account for indication bias., Results: Of the 95 patients treated, 88 (93%) had follow-up with a median duration of 5 months (1-18). Frame utilization was more likely with 6 to 10 brain metastases. Median overall survival was not reached and was 70% and 60% at 6 and 12 months for the entire cohort, respectively. There was no significant difference in survival by immobilization method ( P  = .12). Six patients had local failure in 10 total lesions (3 patients in each group). After propensity matching the 12 month tumor local control was 96% and 85% for framed and frameless cases, respectively ( P  = .07)., Conclusions: Frameless mask-based stereotactic radiosurgery using the Gamma Knife Icon is feasible and maintains the excellent local control seen with the use of the headframe., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Purpose: The Gamma Knife (GK) Icon allows for the delivery of stereotactic radiosurgery using a thermoplastic mask in combination with intrafraction motion monitoring using high definition motion management. The system pauses treatment if the magnitude of motion in all directions exceeds 1 to 1.5 mm, causing a break in treatment and prolongation of the session. We reviewed the records of patients treated in a frameless manner on our GK Icon system to determine predictors for treatment interruption., Methods and Materials: We reviewed the records of patients treated between May 2019 and May 2020 on the GK Icon using a frameless technique for brain metastases, gliomas, schwannomas, and meningiomas. We recorded treatment time as noted in the plan document, actual treatment delivery time, and any pauses in treatment. We tabulated baseline characteristics including age, gender, diagnosis, performance status, and shifts at time of treatment. We used a receiver operating curve analysis to determine a timepoint corresponding with treatment interruption. We then conducted a logistic regression analysis to generate odds ratios for likelihood of treatment., Results: We identified 150 patients meeting inclusion criteria. The majority (82%) were patients with brain metastases. The median age was 63 and the median dose was 27 Gy (16-30 Gy) in 3 fractions (1-5 fractions). The median treatment time was 23 minutes (4-108 minutes). Sixty-nine patients (46%) had at least 1 pause in treatment (range, 1-7). Receiver operating curve analysis revealed treatment time >19 minutes and rotation >0.47 degrees to be associated with interruption. Multivariable logistic regression revealed rotation >0.47 degrees and treatment time >19 minutes as predictive of interruption., Conclusions: For patients with rotations exceeding 0.47 degrees or an extended treatment time, physicians should expect treatment interruptions, consider fractionation to lessen table time, or use a frame-based approach., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

Purpose: Repeat computed tomography (CT) simulation is problematic because of additional expense of clinic resources, patient inconvenience, additional radiation exposure, and treatment delay. We investigated the factors and clinical impact of unplanned CT resimulations in our network., Methods and Materials: We used the billing records of 18,170 patients treated at 5 clinics. A total of 213 patients were resimulated before their first treatment. The disease site, location, use of 4-dimensional CT (4DCT), contrast, image fusion, and cause for resimulation were recorded. Odds ratios determined statistical significance., Results: Our total rate of resimulation was 1.2%. Anal/colorectal ( P  < .001) and head and neck ( P  < .001) disease sites had higher rates of resimulation. Brain ( P  = .001) and lung/thorax ( P  = .008) had lower rates of resimulation. The most common causes for resimulation were setup change (11.7%), change in patient anatomy (9.8%), and rectal filling (8.5%). The resimulation rate for 4DCTs was 3.03% compared with 1.0% for non-4DCTs ( P  < .001). Median time between simulations was 7 days., Conclusions: The most common sites for resimulation were anal/colorectal and head and neck, largely because of change in setup or changes in anatomy. The 4DCT technique correlated with higher resimulation rates. The resimulation rate was 1.2%, and median treatment delay was 7 days. Further studies are warranted to limit the rate of resimulation., (© 2019 The Author(s).)