A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigates the impact of recent evidence favoring stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) over conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for treating metastatic spine disease on insurance approval rates.
  • Before the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) included this evidence in their guidelines, 25% of trial-eligible patients faced SBRT insurance denials; after inclusion, that rate dropped to 12.5% among a smaller group.
  • Although the reduction in denials is notable, the small sample size makes it statistically insignificant, underscoring the need for more research and timely updates to clinical guidelines.

Article 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11698557PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/rpor.102822DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

level evidence
12
insurance denial
12
metastatic spine
12
nccn inclusion
12
sbrt
9
national comprehensive
8
comprehensive cancer
8
cancer network
8
inclusion level
8
randomized controlled
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!