Suppr超能文献

美国国立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保险拒付情况的影响

Impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Inclusion of Level 1 Evidence on Insurance Denial for Randomized Controlled Trial Patients with Metastatic Spine Disease.

作者信息

Gardner Ulysses G, Brately Melissa M, Zuhour Raed J, Sun Yilun, Spratt Daniel E, McClelland Shearwood

机构信息

Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, United States.

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, United States.

出版信息

Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2024 Dec 4;29(5):657-660. doi: 10.5603/rpor.102822. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

转移性脊柱疾病的主要治疗方法是放射治疗(RT),传统上是常规外照射放疗(EBRT)或立体定向体部放疗(SBRT)。直到最近,还没有一级证据支持SBRT优于EBRT,这导致在获得保险批准方面存在困难。第一项比较SBRT和EBRT治疗脊柱转移瘤的随机对照试验(RCT)[加拿大癌症试验组(CCTG)]的发表有助于改变这种情况。结果显示SBRT在疼痛缓解方面具有优势;然而,直到《美国国立综合癌症网络(NCCN)》2023年3月24日才引用这些结果。我们展示了一项正在进行的RCT的结果,以评估NCCN纳入该结果对符合试验条件的患者保险拒绝情况的影响。

材料与方法

正在进行的SPORTSMEN RCT将转移性脊柱癌患者随机分为SBRT组和EBRT组。对前六个月符合试验条件的患者进行检查,以评估在2023年3月24日之前与之后SBRT是否被保险拒绝。采用Fisher精确检验评估统计学意义。

结果

在CCTG被NCCN纳入之前,12名符合试验条件的患者中有25%的SBRT保险被拒绝。在NCCN纳入之后,8名患者中有1名(12.5%)的SBRT保险被拒绝。这些差异无统计学意义。

结论

NCCN指南中纳入一级证据已使RCT中脊柱SBRT保险拒绝率在数值上减半,样本量小可能是未达到统计学意义的最大原因。这些发现说明了产生高质量证据并及时纳入NCCN指南的重要性。

相似文献

8
Prospective Validation of An Inpatient Metastatic Spine Neoplasm Score To Assess the Optimal Radiation Therapy Intervention Modality.
Am J Clin Oncol. 2025 Jul 1;48(7):336-338. doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000001184. Epub 2025 Mar 3.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验