Back to Authors

Sim, Austin J.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5523-4347

Mayo Clinic

The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute

Citations 2

Consensus radiation therapy organ at risk constraints for NCTN trials in hematologic malignancies
Sim, Austin J. , Hoppe, Bradford S. , Ballas, Leslie K, Milgrom, Sarah A. , Terezakis, Stephanie A, Ha, Chul S. , Figura, Nicholas , Parikh, Rahul R., Grecula, J.C., Flampouri, Stella , Kelsey, Christopher R, Parikh, Rahul R. , Parikh, Rahul R , Hoppe, Bradford S , Ballas, Leslie K. , Terezakis, Stephanie A , Plastaras, John Peter , Hodgson, David C. , Ryckman, Jeffrey M. , Pinnix, Chelsea C. , Kelsey, Chris R.

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | April 7, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1093/jnci/djag112 Get It

Abstract Modern radiation therapy (RT) technologies allow for improved sparing of normal tissues, decreasing the risk of both acute and long-term toxicities. Existing RT dose constraints for prospective trials within the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) were formulated in the context of solid malignancies. As patients with hematologic malignancies are often treated with lower RT doses and are usually younger with more favorable prognoses, customized dose constraints are needed. The NRG Oncology Hematologic Malignancies Working Group (NRG HEME) commissioned a review of existing organ-at-risk (OAR) constraints from published primary literature, the NRG Center for Innovation in Radiation Oncology (CIRO), and national guidelines. Customized constraints were developed by iterative review by NRG HEME. Final recommendations were approved by radiation oncology representatives from all the lymphoma NCTN groups (NRG Oncology, Children’s Oncology Group, Alliance, ECOG-ACRIN, SWOG, Canadian Cancer Trials Group). For 49 OARs, a strict recommended constraint was determined, of which 20 were not present in CIRO. Of the remaining 29 constraints, 20 were lower, 2 were the same, and 5 used different metrics; 2 were higher than at least 1 CIRO trial constraint. Acceptable variations were determined and unacceptable variations were added for select critical OARs for plan scoring. While doses to OARs without explicit unacceptable variations should not exceed acceptable variations, violations should not be considered for plan quality assessment on trials. This consensus list of standard OAR constraints should be incorporated for all future NCTN trials in hematologic malignancies. Strict dose constraints will minimize long-term toxicities in this patient population.
The growing burden of prior authorization: A national survey.
Gracie, Jayden , Sim, Austin J. , Gardner, Liz, Beatley, Emilio, Chen, Xuguang , Sharifzadeh, Yasamin , Winkfield, Karen M. , Chin, Alexander L. , Paravati, Anthony J., Luh, Join Y. , Barnes, Justin M. , Beatley, Emilio, Bates, James E. , Shen, Xinglei , Hong, David S. , Sio, Terence T. , Jimenez, Rachel , Chino, Fumiko

JCO Oncology Practice | October 7, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 10_suppl | Pages: 98-98

10.1200/op.2025.21.10_suppl.98 Get It

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.