Grace L Smith1, Patricia A Ganz2, Justin E Bekelman3, Steven J Chmura4, James J Dignam5, Jason A Efstathiou6, Reshma Jagsi7, Peter A Johnstone8, Michael L Steinberg9, Stephen B Williams10, James B Yu11, Anthony L Zietman6, Ralph R Weichselbaum4, Ya-Chen Tina Shih12. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: glsmith@mdanderson.org. 2. Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 10. Division of Urology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 12. Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Leaders in the oncology community are sounding a clarion call to promote "value" in cancer care decisions. Value in cancer care considers the clinical effectiveness, along with the costs, when selecting a treatment. To discuss possible solutions to the current obstacles to achieving value in the use of advanced technologies in oncology, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop, "Appropriate Use of Advanced Technologies for Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Oncology" in July 2015. The present report summarizes the discussions related to radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The workshop convened stakeholders, including oncologists, researchers, payers, policymakers, and patients. Speakers presented on key themes, including the rationale for a value discussion on advanced technology use in radiation oncology, the generation of scientific evidence for value of advanced radiation technologies, the effect of both scientific evidence and "marketplace" (or economic) factors on the adoption of technologies, and newer approaches to improving value in the practice of radiation oncology. The presentations were followed by a panel discussion with dialogue among the stakeholders. RESULTS: Challenges to generating evidence for the value of advanced technologies include obtaining contemporary, prospective, randomized, and representative comparative effectiveness data. Proposed solutions include the use of prospective registry data; integrating radiation oncology treatment, outcomes, and quality benchmark data; and encouraging insurance coverage with evidence development. Challenges to improving value in practice include the slow adoption of higher value and the de-adoption of lower value treatments. The proposed solutions focused on engaging stakeholders in iterative, collaborative, and evidence-based efforts to define value and promote change in radiation oncology practice. Recent examples of ongoing or successful responses to the discussed challenges were provided. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions of "value" have increased as a priority in the radiation oncology community. Practitioners in the radiation oncology community can play a critical role in promoting a value-oriented framework to approach radiation oncology treatment.
PURPOSE: Leaders in the oncology community are sounding a clarion call to promote "value" in cancer care decisions. Value in cancer care considers the clinical effectiveness, along with the costs, when selecting a treatment. To discuss possible solutions to the current obstacles to achieving value in the use of advanced technologies in oncology, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop, "Appropriate Use of Advanced Technologies for Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Oncology" in July 2015. The present report summarizes the discussions related to radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The workshop convened stakeholders, including oncologists, researchers, payers, policymakers, and patients. Speakers presented on key themes, including the rationale for a value discussion on advanced technology use in radiation oncology, the generation of scientific evidence for value of advanced radiation technologies, the effect of both scientific evidence and "marketplace" (or economic) factors on the adoption of technologies, and newer approaches to improving value in the practice of radiation oncology. The presentations were followed by a panel discussion with dialogue among the stakeholders. RESULTS: Challenges to generating evidence for the value of advanced technologies include obtaining contemporary, prospective, randomized, and representative comparative effectiveness data. Proposed solutions include the use of prospective registry data; integrating radiation oncology treatment, outcomes, and quality benchmark data; and encouraging insurance coverage with evidence development. Challenges to improving value in practice include the slow adoption of higher value and the de-adoption of lower value treatments. The proposed solutions focused on engaging stakeholders in iterative, collaborative, and evidence-based efforts to define value and promote change in radiation oncology practice. Recent examples of ongoing or successful responses to the discussed challenges were provided. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions of "value" have increased as a priority in the radiation oncology community. Practitioners in the radiation oncology community can play a critical role in promoting a value-oriented framework to approach radiation oncology treatment.
Authors: Dana P Goldman; Geoffrey F Joyce; Grant Lawless; William H Crown; Vincent Willey Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Katherine E Henson; Reshma Jagsi; David Cutter; Paul McGale; Carolyn Taylor; Sarah C Darby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Aaron D Falchook; Laura H Hendrix; Heather Curry; Ronald C Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S Yousuf Zafar; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Deborah Schrag; Donald H Taylor; Amy M Goetzinger; Xiaoyin Zhong; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-02-26
Authors: Torunn I Yock; Beow Y Yeap; David H Ebb; Elizabeth Weyman; Bree R Eaton; Nicole A Sherry; Robin M Jones; Shannon M MacDonald; Margaret B Pulsifer; Beverly Lavally; Annah N Abrams; Mary S Huang; Karen J Marcus; Nancy J Tarbell Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-01-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Yong Shan; Usama Jazzar; Hemalkumar B Mehta; Jacques G Baillargeon; Jinhai Huo; Anthony J Senagore; Eduardo Orihuela; Douglas S Tyler; Todd A Swanson; Ashish M Kamat Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Yong Shan; Mohamed D Ray-Zack; Hogan K Hudgins; Usama Jazzar; Douglas S Tyler; Stephen J Freedland; Todd A Swanson; Jacques G Baillargeon; Jim C Hu; Sapna Kaul; Ashish M Kamat; John L Gore; Hemalkumar B Mehta Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Charisma Hehakaya; Ankur M Sharma; Jochem R N van der Voort Van Zijp; Diederick E Grobbee; Helena M Verkooijen; Enrique W Izaguirre; Ellen H M Moors Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-05-25
Authors: Steve Braunstein; Li Wang; Wayne Newhauser; Todd Tenenholz; Yi Rong; Albert van der Kogel; Michael Dominello; Michael C Joiner; Jay Burmeister Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Stephen R Bowen; Daniel S Hippe; Hannah M Thomas; Balukrishna Sasidharan; Paul D Lampe; Christina S Baik; Keith D Eaton; Sylvia Lee; Renato G Martins; Rafael Santana-Davila; Delphine L Chen; Paul E Kinahan; Robert S Miyaoka; Hubert J Vesselle; A McGarry Houghton; Ramesh Rengan; Jing Zeng Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-11-21
Authors: Steven H Lin; Kaiping Liao; Xiudong Lei; Vivek Verma; Sherif Shaaban; Percy Lee; Aileen B Chen; Albert C Koong; Wayne L Hoftstetter; Steven J Frank; Zhongxing Liao; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Sharon H Giordano; Grace L Smith Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Danielle S Bitterman; Daniel N Cagney; Lisa L Singer; Paul L Nguyen; Paul J Catalano; Raymond H Mak Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506