Bates, James E.

98 Background: Prior authorization (PA) purports to control costs and ensure adherence to evidence-based guidelines but negatively impacts cancer care. Radiation oncology (RO) represents a minority of overall cancer spending yet bears a disproportionately high PA burden. Limited research exists on the effects of PA on patient outcomes and administrative workload within RO clinics. Methods: From 9/2024 to 10/2024, an online survey was open to U.S. members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology assessing experiences with PA including disposition (approval/denial/appeal including peer-to-peer [P2P] review) and perceived impact on patient care and administrative workload. Outcomes included treatment delays, changes from recommended treatment, and patient event including hospitalization, ED visits, permanent disability, or death. Descriptive statistics evaluated responses. Results: Of 736 responding radiation oncologists (16% response rate), 83% reported a rise in PA over the past three years, with 58% noting the burden has increased greatly. In the past year, 50% reported that more than half of their cases required PA, with a median approval rate of 75% and median overturn rate of 82% for denials. For more than half of their cases, nearly half of physicians (43%) noted that P2P was a futile effort to overturn PA denials due to insurance policies. Most (75%) reported that PA resulted in their practice needing to reallocate staff; 91% reported worsening burnout due to PA. P2P reviews were particularly burdensome, averaging 1.65 hours per week. A third (30%) reported that PA requirements had caused serious complications for their patients, including 7% who reported PA had contributed to patient death. Almost all (91%) reported PA-related treatment delays for some of their patients, with 58% indicating average delays of ≥5 days. Most (81%) reported that at times they had to use radiation techniques they considered less optimal due to PA, including 58% who were forced to deviate from national guidelines. The most common reasons for not appealing a PA denial were anticipated delays (73%), perceived futility based on prior PA experiences (62%), and administrative burden (45%). Conclusions: The administrative and clinical burdens associated with PA have significant implications for patient care, physician well-being, and healthcare resource allocation in RO. Treatment delays, compromised therapies, and adverse patient outcomes are commonly reported and underscore the need for PA reform to improve patient outcomes, reduce physician burnout, and improve efficiency.

Because proton beam therapy (PBT) can lower the dose of radiation to the heart, lungs, and breast, it is an established radiation modality for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Pencil beam scanning (PBS) PBT facilitates the treatment of more extensive targets. This may be especially of value for lymphoma patients who require RT to both mediastinal and axillary targets, defined here as extended target RT (ETRT), given the target distribution and need to minimize the lung, heart, and breast dose. Using the Proton Collaborative Group registry, we identified patients with HL treated with PBT to both their mediastinum and axilla, for which DICOM-RT was available. All patients were treated with PBS. To evaluate the dosimetric impact of PBS, we compared delivered PBS plans with VMAT butterfly photon plans optimized to have the same target volume coverage, when feasible. Between 2016 and 2021, twelve patients (median 26 years) received PBS ETRT (median 30.6 Gy (RBE)). Despite the large superior/inferior (SI, median 22.2 cm) and left/right (LR, median 22.8 cm) extent of the ETRT targets, all patients were treated with one isocenter except for two patients (both with SI and LR > 30 cm). Most commonly, anterior beams, with or without posterior beams, were used. Compared to photons, PBS had greater target coverage, better conformity, and lower dose heterogeneity while achieving lower doses to the lungs and heart, but not to the breast. No acute grade 3+ toxicities were reported, including pneumonitis. Proton ETRT in this small cohort was safely delivered with PBS and was associated with an improved sparing of the heart and lungs compared to VMAT.

PURPOSE Radiation-associated cardiac disease is a major cause of morbidity/mortality among childhood cancer survivors. Radiation dose-response relationships for cardiac substructures and cardiac diseases remain unestablished. METHODS Using the 25,481 5-year survivors of childhood cancer treated from 1970 to 1999 in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we evaluated coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), valvular disease (VD), and arrhythmia. We reconstructed radiation doses for each survivor to the coronary arteries, chambers, valves, and whole heart. Excess relative rate (ERR) models and piecewise exponential models evaluated dose-response relationships. RESULTS The cumulative incidence 35 years from diagnosis was 3.9% (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.3) for CAD, 3.8% (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.2) for HF, 1.2% (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) for VD, and 1.4% (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6) for arrhythmia. A total of 12,288 survivors (48.2%) were exposed to radiotherapy. Quadratic ERR models improved fit compared with linear ERR models for the dose-response relationship between mean whole heart and CAD, HF, and arrhythmia, suggesting a potential threshold dose; however, such departure from linearity was not observed for most cardiac substructure end point dose-response relationships. Mean doses of 5-9.9 Gy to the whole heart did not increase the risk of any cardiac diseases. Mean doses of 5-9.9 Gy to the right coronary artery (rate ratio [RR], 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.1]) and left ventricle (RR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3 to 3.7]) increased risk of CAD, and to the tricuspid valve (RR, 5.5 [95% CI, 2.0 to 15.1]) and right ventricle (RR, 8.4 [95% CI, 3.7 to 19.0]) increased risk of VD. CONCLUSION Among children with cancer, there may be no threshold dose below which radiation to the cardiac substructures does not increase the risk of cardiac diseases. This emphasizes their importance in modern treatment planning.

10027 Background: Thoracic radiotherapy (RT) is a risk factor for cardiac disease among survivors of childhood cancer based on studies considering RT doses to the entire heart. Dose to specific cardiac substructures may provide more precise dose-response associations to guide RT planning. We report associations between RT dose to cardiac substructures and risk of specific cardiac outcomes. Methods: We determined the cumulative incidences of CTCAE grade 3 – 5 coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), and valvular disease (VD) among 25,481 5-year childhood cancer survivors diagnosed 1970 – 1999 in the CCSS. Median age at diagnosis was 6.1 years (0 – 20 years) and at last follow-up 29.8 years (5.6 – 65.9 years). For the 12,228 individuals receiving RT, fields were reconstructed on an age scaled computational phantom. Mean doses to the entire heart, cardiac chambers, valves, and left main, anterior descending (LAD), circumflex, and right coronary (RCA) arteries were estimated. Adjusted piecewise exponential models (including cumulative anthracycline dose) evaluated associations between mean RT dose to each structure and outcomes. Results: At 30 years from diagnosis, the cumulative incidences of grades 3 – 5 CAD, HF, and VD were 2.3% (95% CI 2.0 – 2.5), 2.6% (95% CI 2.4 – 2.9), and 0.6% (95% CI 0.5 – 0.8) respectively. Low dose RT (mean 5 – 9.9 Gy) to the RCA (relative rate [RR] = 2.6, 95% CI 1.6 – 4.1, p < 0.001), LAD (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 – 3.3, p = 0.019), and left ventricle (RR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 – 3.7, p = 0.002) was associated with increased risk of CAD relative to those not exposed; mean dose of 5 – 9.9 Gy to the entire heart was not (RR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.8 – 1.6, p = 0.59). Table shows the associated cumulative incidences of CAD for these structures. Mean RT doses of 5 – 9.9 Gy to the aortic valve (RR = 4.6, 95% CI 1.5 – 14.0, p = 0.008) and tricuspid valve (RR = 5.5, 95% CI 2.0 – 15.1, p = 0.001) were associated with risk of VD compared to those with no RT; mean heart dose 5 – 9.9 Gy was not (RR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.2 – 1.3, p = 0.16). No cardiac structure was significantly associated with an increased risk of HF at a mean dose of 5 – 9.9 Gy. Mean RT doses below 5 Gy were not associated with increased risks of CAD, HF, or VD; doses ≥10 Gy to nearly all substructures and the entire heart were. Conclusions: Low dose RT to the coronary arteries and cardiac valves (5 – 9.9 Gy) from RT is associated with increased risk of CAD and VD, respectively. Sensitivity to low dose RT may vary across the heart and doses to specific structures may be more predictive of late cardiac disease than whole heart dose. These data can guide RT planning to prioritize substructures for avoidance.[Table: see text]

Abstract Background Out‐of‐field neutron dissemination during double‐scattered proton therapy has raised concerns of increased second malignancies, disproportionally affecting pediatric patients due to the proportion of body exposed to scatter dose and inherent radiosensitivity of developing tissue. We sought to provide empiric data on the incidence of early second tumors. Methods Between 2006 and 2019, 1713 consecutive children underwent double‐scattered proton therapy. Median age at treatment was 9.1 years; 371 were ≤3 years old. Thirty‐seven patients (2.2%) had tumor predisposition syndromes. Median prescription dose was 54 Gy (range 15–75.6). Median follow‐up was 3.3 years (range 0.1–12.8), including 6587 total person‐years. Five hundred forty‐nine patients had ≥5 years of follow‐up. A second tumor was defined as any solid neoplasm throughout the body. Results Eleven patients developed second tumors; the 5‐ and 10‐year cumulative incidences were 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4–1.9%) and 3.1% (95% CI, 1.5–6.2%), respectively. Using age‐ and gender‐specific data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, the standardized incidence ratio was 13.5; the absolute excess risk was 1.5/1000 person‐years. All but one patient who developed second tumors were irradiated at ≤5 years old ( p < .0005). There was also a statistically significant correlation between patients with tumor predisposition syndromes and second tumors ( p < .0001). Excluding patients with tumor predisposition syndromes, 5‐ and 10‐year rates were 0.6% (95% CI, 0.2–1.7%) and 1.7% (95% CI, 0.7–4.0%), respectively, with all five malignant second tumors occurring in the high‐dose region. Conclusion Second tumors are rare within the decade following double‐scattered proton therapy, particularly among children irradiated at >5 years old and those without tumor predisposition syndrome.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) is an effective treatment for localized gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas unresponsive to antibiotic therapy; however, irradiating the stomach can result in significant radiation to the heart, a risk factor for cardiac disease. We analyzed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to evaluate outcomes related to cardiac disease among patients treated with RT for stage I gastric MALT. Materials and Methods: We identified adult patients treated between 1993 and 2014. The relationship between treatment modality (RT, chemotherapy, combination, and no treatment) and overall survival (OS), mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue-specific survival (MSS), non-mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue-specific survival (non-MSS), and cardiac-specific survival (CSS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazards analyses. Results: A total of 2996 patients (median follow-up, 5.6 y) were analyzed: 27.5% had received RT alone, 12.1% chemotherapy alone, 3.9% chemoradiotherapy, and 56.5% no/unknown treatment (including antibiotic therapy). Compared with RT alone, patients who received chemotherapy alone exhibited worse OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32-2.10; P<0.001) and MSS (HR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.36-3.23; P=0.001). Although CSS appeared worse in patients who received chemotherapy (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.92-2.66; P=0.10), it was not statistically significant. When comparing orbital and gastric MALT patients, there was no significant difference in CSS (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.31; P=0.38). Conclusions: RT improved survival among patients with stage I gastric MALT without increasing the risk of cardiac death. Those with gastric MALT exhibited similar CSS to those with orbital MALT. Although we cannot analyze nonfatal cardiac toxicity, these results suggest that, absent antibiotic therapy, RT should remain first-line treatment for early-stage gastric MALT.