Research Reveals No Difference Between Proton Radiotherapy(PRT) and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) in Toxicity After Prostate Cancer Treatment
A new study published in December 14 edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reveals that when comparing the toxicity among Medicare beneficiary patients with prostate cancer treated with proton radiotherapy(PRT) and Intensity-modulated radiotherapy(IMRT), there is little or no difference discovered.
The researchers from Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Therapeutic Radiology carried out the study. Details are highlighted below:
There is no difference between proton radiotherapy (PRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) when comparing the toxicity among Medicare beneficiary patients with prostate cancer at 12 months post-treatment, according to a study published December 14 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
IMRT is the standard form of radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer, accounting for more than 80% of all treatments. Alternative treatments for radiotherapy have emerged, with the most notable being PRT.
PRT treatment has surfaced partly due Medicare reimbursement, which reimburses PRT at a rate of 1.4-2.5 times that of IMRT. Despite its widespread use, the benefits and harms of PRT compared with other types of radiotherapy remain unknown.
To determine the long-term effects of PRT treatment compared with IMRT treatment, James B. Yu, M.D., Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Therapeutic Radiology, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of all Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older who had received PRT or IMRT for prostate cancer during 2008 and/or 2009.
Each PRT patient was then matched with two IMRT patients with both similar clinical and sociodemographic characteristics to assess the toxicity of each treatment, while the cost of IMRT or PRT treatment was calculated for each patient using the sum of Medicare reimbursements for outpatient and physician claims.
The researchers found that patients who received PRT were younger, healthier and from more thriving areas than those who received IMRT.
While PRT was linked to a statistically significant reduction in genitourinary toxicity at 6 months compared with IMRT, there was no statistically significant difference in gastrointestinal or other toxicities at 6 or 12 months post-treatment.
“The relative reimbursement of new medical technologies needs to be considered carefully so that physicians and hospitals do not have a financial incentive to adopt a technology before supporting evidence is available,” the researchers write.
“Continued longitudinal study of the comparative effectiveness of PRT compared with IMRT is needed before widespread application of PRT for prostate cancer can be justified.”
In an accompanying editorial, Justin E. Bekelman, M.D., Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine and Stephen M. Hahn, M.D., Chair and Henry K. Pancoast Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, write that the study has limitations and could lead to misclassifications of the results.
“Without studies to validate the surrogacy of claims-based endpoints, outcome misclassification could lead to false-negative or false-positive results,” they write.
In another accompanying editorial, Theodore S. Lawrence, M.D., Ph.D., Chair, Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, and Mary Feng, M.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, write that,
“It is assumed that one can assess toxicity by evaluating billing codes, but toxicities are not well graded, and many could be missed,” arguing that a thorough comparison of the two treatments cannot yet be made. ”
Although it seems unlikely that proton therapy will be superior to IMRT photons for prostate cancer, protons may be superior for tumors in which the elimination of the low-dose regions might decrease normal tissue injury (eg, lung cancers, when combined with chemotherapy).” Source.
The above research is quite interesting, as it could go long way to change the course of Medicare provisions for those who are undergo radiation treatment for prostate cancer.
More particularly, it would help individuals to get most of reimbursement when treated with cancer of the prostate.
More details on this new study should be accessed from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
This HUGE 4+ Year Old Prostate Cancer Victory Authority Website:
(95% of these 1,000+ Prostate Cancer Articles on this website
are written by our Expert In -house Writers, after lots of research.
The remaining 5% are news articles and videos from relevant sources!)
- IMRT or Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment for Prostate Cancer
- Prostate Brachytherapy And IMRT -Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy
- Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostrate Cancer (IMRT)
- IMRT – The Best Radiation Treatment for Prostate Cancer Now
- Imrt For Prostate Cancer Treatment – an effective therapy that treat many types of cancer
- IMRT Prostate Cancer Treatment
- Imrt For Prostate Cancer Treatment
- IMRT Prostate Cancer
- Prostate Cancer Treatment Florida – Proton Therapy at University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute
- Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment
- Prostate Cancer Treatment By Proton Therapy And Cost To Patients
- Radiotherapy Prostate Cancer Treatments and Side Effects
- Proton Beam Therapy Treatment for Prostate Cancer
- High-Dose Image-Guided IMRT for treating localized prostate cancer is Effective in a Medium Term Evaluation
- Secondary Cancer From Radiotherapy Similar To Radical Prostatectomy – Study