CAM 80149

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT): Abdomen and Pelvis

Category:Therapy   Last Reviewed:May 2019
Department(s):Medical Affairs   Next Review:May 2020
Original Date:August 2012    

Description:
Radiotherapy may be an integral component of the treatment of cancers of the abdomen and pelvis. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has been proposed as a method that allows adequate radiation to the tumor while minimizing the radiation dose to surrounding normal tissues and critical structures.

For individuals who have gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancers who receive intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the evidence includes nonrandomized comparative studies and retrospective series. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. IMRT has been compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for the treatment of stomach, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic cancers. Evidence has been inconsistent with the outcome of survival, with some studies reporting increased survival among patients receiving IMRT compared with patients receiving 3D-CRT, and other studies reporting no difference between groups. However, most studies found that patients receiving IMRT experienced significantly less GI toxicity compared with patients receiving 3D-CRT. The available comparative evidence, together with dosimetry studies of organs at risk, would suggest that IMRT decreases toxicity compared with 3D-CRT in patients who had GI cancers.The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals who have gynecologic cancers who receive IMRT, the evidence includes 2 small randomized controlled trials and several nonrandomized comparative studies. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. There is limited comparative evidence on survival outcomes following IMRT or 3D-CRT. However, results are generally consistent that IMRT reduces GI and genitourinary toxicity. Based on evidence with other cancers of the pelvis and abdomen that are proximate to organs at risk, it is expected that overall survival with IMRT would be at least as good as 3D-CRT, with a decrease in toxicity. A reduction in GI toxicity is likely to improve the quality of life in patients with gynecologic cancer.The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals who have anorectal cancer who receive IMRT, the evidence includes a small randomized controlled trial (N=20), nonrandomized comparative studies, and case series. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Survival outcomes have not differed significantly between patients receiving IMRT and 3D-CRT. However, studies have found that patients receiving IMRT plus chemotherapy for the treatment of anal cancer experience fewer acute and late adverse events than patients receiving 3D-CRT plus chemotherapy, primarily in GI toxicity. A reduction in GI toxicity is likely to improve the quality of life in patients with anorectal cancer. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

Input was obtained in 2010 and 2012. It supported the use of IMRT in tumors of the abdomen and pelvis when normal tissues would receive unacceptable doses of radiation. Through a chain of evidence, this reduced toxicity potentially lowers the risk of adverse events (acute and late effects of radiation toxicity). This input and a chain of evidence related to the potential to reduce harms led to the decision that IMRT may be considered medically necessaryfor the treatment of tumors of the abdomen and pelvis when dosimetric planning with standard 3D-CRT predicts that the radiation dose to an adjacent organ would result in unacceptable normal tissue toxicity.   

Background
Radiation Techniques
Over the past several decades, methods to plan and deliver radiotherapy (RT) have evolved in ways that permit more precise targeting of tumors with complex geometries. Most early trials used 2-dimensional treatment planning, based on flat images and radiation beams with cross-sections of uniform intensity that were sequentially aimed at the tumor along 2 or 3 intersecting axes. Collectively, these methods are termed conventional external-beam radiotherapy.

Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy
Treatment planning evolved by using 3-dimensional images, usually from computed tomography (CT) scans, to delineate the boundaries of the tumor and discriminate tumor tissue from adjacent normal tissue and nearby organs at risk for radiation damage. Computer algorithms were developed to estimate cumulative radiation dose delivered to each volume of interest by summing the contribution from each shaped beam. Methods also were developed to position the patient and the radiation portal reproducibly for each fraction and immobilize the patient, thus maintaining consistent beam axes across treatment sessions. Collectively, these methods are termed 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT).

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), which uses computer software and CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images, offers better conformality than 3D-CRT, because it is able to modulate the intensity of the overlapping radiation beams projected on the target and to use multiple shaped treatment fields. Treatment planning and delivery are more complex, time consuming and labor intensive for IMRT than for 3D-CRT. The technique uses a multileaf collimator [MLC]), which, when coupled with a computer algorithm, allows for "inverse" treatment planning. The radiation oncologist delineates the target on each slice of a CT scan and specifies the target’s prescribed radiation dose, acceptable limits of dose heterogeneity within the target volume, adjacent normal tissue volumes to avoid and acceptable dose limits within the normal tissues. Based on these parameters and a digitally reconstructed radiographic image of the tumor, surrounding tissues and organs at risk, computer software optimizes the location, shape and intensities of the beam ports to achieve the treatment plan’s goals.

Increased conformality may permit escalated tumor doses without increasing normal tissue toxicity and, thus, may improve local tumor control, with decreased exposure to surrounding, normal tissues, potentially reducing acute and late radiation toxicities. Better dose homogeneity within the target may also improve local tumor control by avoiding underdosing within the tumor and may decrease toxicity by avoiding overdosing.

Technologic development has produced advanced techniques that may further improve RT treatment by improving dose distribution. These techniques are considered variations of IMRT. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivers radiation from a continuous rotation of the radiation source. The principal advantage of VMAT is greater efficiency in treatment delivery time, reducing radiation exposure and improving target radiation delivery due to less patient motion. Image-guided RT involves the incorporation of imaging before and/or during treatment to more precisely deliver RT to the target volume.

IMRT methods to plan and deliver RT are not uniform. IMRT may use beams that remain on as MLCs move around the patient (dynamic MLC) or that are off during movement and turn on once the MLC reaches prespecified positions ("step and shoot" technique). A third alternative uses a very narrow single beam that moves spirally around the patient (tomotherapy). Each method uses different computer algorithms to plan treatment and yields somewhat different dose distributions in and outside the target. Patient position can alter target shape and, thus, affect treatment plans. Treatment plans are usually based on 1 imaging scan, a static 3D-CT image. Current methods seek to reduce positional uncertainty for tumors and adjacent normal tissues by various techniques. Patient immobilization cradles and skin or bony markers are used to minimize day-to-day variability in patient positioning. In addition, many tumors have irregular edges that preclude drawing tight margins on CT scan slices when radiation oncologists contour the tumor volume. It is unknown whether omitting some tumor cells or including some normal cells in the resulting target affects outcomes of IMRT.

Note the evidence for the following abdominal and pelvic cancers has not yet been reviewed and is beyond the scope of this document: bladder, kidney, ureter and esophageal cancer and sarcoma.

Regulatory Status 
In general, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) systems include intensity modulators, which control, block or filter the intensity of radiation; and radiotherapy (RT) planning systems, which plan the radiation dose to be delivered.

A number of intensity modulators have been cleared for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the 510(k) process. Intensity modulators include the Innocure Intensity Modulating Radiation Therapy Compensators (Innocure Inc., Tempe, AZ) and decimal tissue compensator (Southeastern Radiation Products, Sanford, FL), cleared in 2006. FDA product code: IXI. Intensity modulators may be added to standard linear accelerators to deliver IMRT when used with proper treatment planning systems.

RT treatment planning systems have also been cleared for marketing by FDA through the 510(k) process. These include the Prowess Panther (Prowess, Concord, CA) in 2003, TiGRT (LinaTech, Sunnyvale, CA) in 2009 and the Ray Dose (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). FDA product code: MUJ.

Fully integrated IMRT systems also are available. These devices are customizable and support all stages of IMRT delivery, including planning, treatment delivery and health record management. One such device cleared for marketing by FDA through the 510(k) process is the Varian IMRT system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). FDA product code: IYE.

Related Policies
80147 Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) of the Prostate
80148 Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT): Cancer of the Head and Neck or Thyroid
80159 Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy: Central Nervous System Tumors

Policy:
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy may be considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY as an approach to delivering radiation therapy for patients with cancer of the anus/anal canal.

When dosimetric planning with standard 3-D conformal radiation predicts that the radiation dose to an adjacent organ would result in unacceptable normal tissue toxicity (see Policy Guidelines), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) may be considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY for the treatment of cancer of the abdomen and pelvis, including, but not limited to:

  • Stomach (gastric)
  • Hepatobiliary tract
  • Pancreas
  • Rectal locations
  • Gynecologic tumors (including cervical, endometrial and vulvar cancers)

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) would be considered INVESTIGATIONAL for all other uses in the abdomen and pelvis.

Policy Guidelines
Table PG1 outlines radiation doses that are generally considered tolerance thresholds for these normal structures in the abdomen and pelvis.

Table PG1. Radiation Tolerance Doses for Normal Tissues Of the Abdomen And Pelvis

 Site

TD 5/5 (Gy)a

TD 50/5 (Gy)b

Complication End Point 
 

Portion of organ involved

Portion of organ involved

 
 

1/3

2/3

3/3

1/3

2/3

3/3

 
Heart   60   45   40   70   55   50   Pericarditis  
Lung   45   30   17.5   65   40   24.5   Pneumonitis  
Spinal cord   50   50   47   70   70   NP   Myelitis/necrosis  
Kidney   50   30   23   NP   40   28   Clinical nephritis  
Liver   50   35   30   55   45   40   Liver failure  
Stomach   60   55   50   70   67   65   Ulceration/perforation  
Small intestine   50   NP   40   60   NP   55   Obstruction/perforation  
Femoral head   NP   NP   52   NP   NP   65   Necrosis  

The tolerance doses in the table are a compilation from the following 2 sources:
  Morgan MA (2011). Radiation oncology. In DeVita, Lawrence, and Rosenberg, Cancer (p.308). Philadelphia: Lippincott
  Williams and Wilkins. 
  Kehwar TS, Sharma SC. Use of normal tissue tolerance doses into linear quadratic equation to estimate normal tissue 
  complication probability. http://www.rooj.com/Radiation%20Tissue%20Tolerance.htm 
NP: not provided. 
a TD 5/5, the average dose that results in a 5% complication risk within 5 y. 
b TD 50/5, the average dose that results in a 50% complication risk within 5 y. 

For intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to provide outcomes that are superior to 3-dimensional conformal radiation (3D-CRT), there must be a clinically meaningful decrease in the radiation exposure to normal structures with IMRT compared with 3D-CRT. There is no standardized definition for a clinically meaningful decrease in radiation dose. In principle, a clinically meaningful decrease would signify a significant reduction in anticipated complications of radiation exposure. To document a clinically meaningful reduction in dose, dosimetry planning studies should demonstrate a significant decrease in the maximum dose of radiation delivered per unit of tissue, and/or a significant decrease in the volume of normal tissue exposed to potentially toxic radiation doses. While radiation tolerance dose levels for normal tissues are well-established, the decrease in the volume of tissue exposed that is needed to provide a clinically meaningful benefit has not been standardized. Therefore, precise parameters for a clinically meaningful decrease cannot be provided. 

Coding
The following CPT codes are used for simple and complex IMRT delivery:

77385: Intensity modulated radiation treatment delivery (IMRT), includes guidance and tracking, when performed; simple

77386: complex.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decided not to implement these CPT codes and instead created HCPCS G codes with the language of the previous CPT codes. So the following codes may be used for IMRT:

G6015: Intensity modulated treatment delivery, single or multiple fields/arcs, via narrow spatially and temporally modulated beams, binary, dynamic MLC [multileaf collimator], per treatment session

G6016: Compensator-based beam modulation treatment delivery of inverse planned treatment using 3 or more high resolution (milled or cast) compensator, convergent beam modulated fields, per treatment session.

Code 77301 remains valid:

77301: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy plan, including dose-volume histograms for target and critical structure partial tolerance specifications.

The following CPT code may also be used:

77338: Multi-leaf collimator (MLC) device(s) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), design and construction per IMRT plan.

Code 77338 is to be reported only once per IMRT plan.

Benefit Application
Blue Card®/National Account Issues
State or federal mandates (e.g., FEP) may dictate that all devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may not be considered investigational and, thus, these devices may be assessed only on the basis of their medical necessity.

Rationale
Evidence reviews assess the clinical evidence to determine whether the use of a technology improves the net health outcome. Broadly defined, health outcomes are length of life, quality of life, and ability to function -- including benefits and harms. Every clinical condition has specific outcomes that are important to patients and to managing the course of that condition. Validated outcome measures are necessary to ascertain whether a condition improves or worsens; and whether the magnitude of that change is clinically significant. The net health outcome is a balance of benefits and harms.

To assess whether the evidence is sufficient to draw conclusions about the net health outcome of a technology, 2 domains are examined: the relevance and the quality and credibility. To be relevant, studies must represent one or more intended clinical uses of the technology in the intended population and compare an effective and appropriate alternative at a comparable intensity. For some conditions, the alternative will be supportive care or surveillance. The quality and credibility of the evidence depend on study design and conduct, minimizing bias and confounding that can generate incorrect findings. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is preferred to assess efficacy; however, in some circumstances, nonrandomized studies may be adequate. RCTs are rarely large enough or long enough to capture less common adverse events and long-term effects. Other types of studies can be used for these purposes and to assess generalizability to broader clinical populations and settings of clinical practice. 

intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cancers of the abdomen and pelvis
Multiple-dose planning studies generate 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans from the same scans and then compare predicted dose distributions within the target area and adjacent organs. Results of such planning studies have shown that IMRT is better than 3D-CRT with respect to conformality to the target and dose homogeneity within the target. Results have also demonstrated that IMRT delivers less radiation to nontarget areas. Dosimetry studies using stationary targets generally confirm these predictions. However, because patients move during treatment, dosimetry with stationary targets only approximate actual radiation doses received. Based on these dosimetry studies, radiation oncologists expect IMRT to improve treatment outcomes compared with those of 3D-CRT.

Comparative studies of radiation-induced adverse events from IMRT vs alternative radiation delivery would constitute definitive evidence of establishing the benefit of IMRT. Single-arm series of IMRT can give insights into the potential for benefit, particularly if an adverse event expected to occur at high rates is shown to decrease significantly. Studies of treatment benefit are also important to establish that IMRT is at least as good as other types of delivery, but absent such comparative trials, it is likely that benefit from IMRT is at least as good as with other types of delivery.

In general, when the indication for IMRT is to avoid radiation to sensitive areas, dosimetry studies have been considered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that harm would be avoided using IMRT. For other indications, such as using IMRT to provide better tumor control, comparative studies of health outcomes are needed to demonstrate such a benefit.

Clinical Context and Test Purpose
The purpose of IMRT in patients who have abdominal or pelvic cancers is to provide a treatment option that is an alternative to or an improvement on existing therapies.

The question addressed in this evidence review is: Does the use of IMRT for the treatment of patients with abdominal and pelvic cancers improve net health outcomes?

The following PICOTS were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients
The relevant populations of interest are patients with gastrointestinal cancers (eg, stomach, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic cancers), gynecologic cancers (eg, cervical and endometrial cancers), and anorectal cancers who are recommended for radiotherapy (RT).

Interventions
The therapy being considered is IMRT. IMRT uses computer software and magnetic resonance imaging for increased conformality, permitting the delivery of higher doses of radiation to the tumor while limiting the exposure of surrounding normal tissues.

Comparators
The following therapy is currently being used: 3D-CRT. 3D-CRT uses 3-dimensional images typically from computed tomography to discriminate tumor tissue from adjacent normal tissue and nearby organs. Computer algorithms are used to estimate radiation doses being delivered to each treatment segment.

Outcomes
The general outcomes of interest are overall survival (OS), recurrence (locoregional control), quality of life, and treatment-related adverse events (eg, toxicity). Toxicity can be assessed using U.S. Department of Health and Human Services grading criteria for adverse events (1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe or medically significant, 4=life-threatening, and 5=death).

Timing
Toxicity and recurrence can be assessed acutely and long-term.

Setting
IMRT is usually administered in a hospital or free-standing facility.

Gastrointestinal Tract Cancers
Stomach
Boda-Heggemann et al (2009) evaluated the efficacy and safety of 2 different adjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens using 3D-CRT or IMRT in 2 consecutive cohorts who underwent primarily D2 resection for gastric cancer.1, A subsequent report (2013) from this group included twenty-seven 3D-CRT patients and 38 IMRT patients.2, The cohorts were generally well-matched, with American Joint Committee on Cancer advanced stage (II-IV) disease. Most (96%) who received 3D-CRT were treated with 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid. Patients in the IMRT cohort received capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (70%) or 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid (30%). Radiation was delivered to a total prescribed dose of 45 gray (Gy) at 1.8 Gy per fraction. In the 3D-CRT cohort, 5 patients received less than 45 Gy because of treatment intolerance. Two patients in the IMRT cohort did not tolerate the full course, and 1 patient received 47 Gy. Overall, the IMRT plus chemotherapy regimen decreased renal toxicity with a trend toward improved survival (see Table 1). However, interpretation of the safety and efficacy of IMRT in this study is limited by differences in the chemotherapy regimens.

Table 1. Outcomes for Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy With Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin vs 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy With 5-FU Plus FA for Stomach Cancer1,2

Outcomes 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy p
Sample 27 38  
Renal toxicity, n (%) 2 (8) 0 0.021
Median disease-free survival, mo 14 35 0.069
Median overall survival, mo 18 43 0.060
Actuarial 2-y overall survival, % 37 67  
Actuarial 5-y overall survival, % 22 44  

Adapted from Boda-Heggemann et al (2009, 2013).1,2,
FA: folinic acid; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil.

Hepatobiliary
Fuller et al (2009) compared a retrospective series with a historical control cohort. Clinical results using image-guided IMRT (n=24) were compared with results using 3D-CRT (n=24) in patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the biliary tract.3, Most patients underwent postsurgical chemoradiotherapy with concurrent fluoropyrimidine-based regimens. Treatment plans prescribed 46 to 56 Gy to the planning target volume that included the tumor and involved lymph nodes, in daily fractions of 1.8 to 2 Gy. Both groups received boost doses of 4 to 18 Gy as needed. The IMRT cohort had median OS of 17.6 months (range, 10.3-32.3 months), while the 3D-CRT cohort had a median OS of 9.0 months (range, 6.6-17.3 months). There were no significant differences between patient cohorts in acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Generalization of results is limited by the small numbers of patients, use of retrospective chart review data, nonrepresentative case spectrum (mostly advanced/metastatic disease), and comparison to a nonconcurrent control RT cohort.

Pancreatic
Literature searches have identified a few comparative studies and case series on IMRT for pancreatic cancer. For example, Lee et al (2016) reported on a prospective comparative study of GI toxicity in patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus IMRT or 3D-CRT for treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.4, Treatment selection was by patient choice after consultation with a radiation oncologist. Symptoms of dyspepsia, nausea or vomiting, and diarrhea did not differ between groups. Upper endoscopy revealed more patients with gastroduodenal ulcers in the 3D-CRT group than in the IMRT group (see Table 2). OS was longer in the IMRT group than in the 3D-CRT group, but the interpretation of survival results was limited by the risk of bias in this nonrandomized study.

Prasad et al (2016) retrospectively reviewed charts of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer who were treated with IMRT (n=134) or 3D-CRT (n=71).5, Propensity score analysis was performed to account for potential confounding variables, including age, sex, radiation dose, RT field size, and concurrent RT. Grade 2 GI toxicity occurred in significantly more patients treated with 3D-CRT than with IMRT (propensity score odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.45; p=0.001; see Table 2). Hematologic toxicity and median survival were similar in the 2 groups. 

Table 2. Outcomes for IMRT vs 3D-CRT for Pancreatic Cancer

Comparison

3D-CRT

IMRT

p

Lee et al (2016)4,

n=40

n=44

 

Grade 1-2 gastroduodenal ulcers, n (%)

11 (42.3)

3 (9.1)

0.003

Overall survival, mo

15.8

22.6

0.006

Prasad et al (2016)5,

n=71

n=134

 

Grade 2+ gastrointestinal toxicity, n (%)

24 (33.8)

21 (15.7)

0.001

Overall survival whole population, mo

NR

NR

NS

3D-CRT: 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy; IMRT: intensity-modulated radiotherapy; NR: not reported; NS: not significant

Section Summary: Gastrointestinal Tract Cancers
The evidence on IMRT for GI tract cancers includes nonrandomized comparative studies. IMRT has been compared with 3D-CRT for the treatment of stomach, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic cancers, with some studies reporting longer OS and decreased toxicity with IMRT. For the treatment of stomach cancer, IMRT improved survival compared with 3D-CRT. However, this study also used different chemotherapy regimens, confounding the results. The evidence on hepatobiliary cancer includes a series of historical controls that found an increase in median survival with no difference in toxicity. Two comparative studies (1 prospective, 1 retrospective) were identified on IMRT for pancreatic cancer. The prospective comparative study found an increase in survival with a reduction in GI toxicity, while the retrospective study found a decrease in GI toxicity. Although most studies were limited by their retrospective designs and changes in practice patterns over time, the available evidence would suggest that IMRT improves survival and decreases toxicity better than 3D-CRT in patients with GI cancers.

Gynecologic Cancers
Randomized Controlled Trials
A trial by Naik et al (2016) randomized 40 patients with cervical cancer to IMRT or to 3D-CRT.6, Both arms received concurrent chemotherapy (cisplatin) plus RT at 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Dosimetric planning showed higher conformality and lower doses to organs at risk with IMRT. With follow-up through 90 days posttreatment, vomiting and acute GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity were significantly higher in the 3D-CRT group (see Table 3).

Gandhi et al (2013) reported on a prospective randomized study that compared whole-pelvis IMRT with whole-pelvis 2-dimensional RT in 44 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.7, Each treatment arm had 22 patients. The OS rate at 27 months was 88% with IMRT and 76% with 2-dimensional RT (p=0.645). However, fewer grade 2, 3, or 4 GI toxicities were experienced in the IMRT group than in the conventional RT group (see Table 3).

Table 3. Acute Toxicity of Grade 2, 3 or 4 With 3D-CRT vs IMRT for Cervical Cancer

Toxicity

3D-CRT, n (%)

IMRT, n (%)

95% CI for the Difference

p

Naik et al (2016)6,

 

 

 

 

Hematologic

8 (40)

7 (35)

-0.219 to 0.119

0.644

Leucopenia

3 (15)

2 (10)

-0.1479 to 0.479

0.424

Vomiting

7 (35)

3 (15)

0.338 to 0.061

0.007

Acute gastrointestinal toxicity

9 (45)

4 (20)

-0.408 to -0.091

0.003

Acute genitourinary toxicity

7 (35)

4 (20)

-0.295 to -0.004

0.058

Gandhi et al (2013)7,

 

 

 

 

Gastrointestinal, grade ≥2

14 (64)

7 (32)

0.002 to 0.604

0.034

Gastrointestinal, grade ≥3

6 (27)

1 (5)

0.003 to 0.447

0.047

Genitourinary, grade ≥2

7 (32)

5 (24)

-0.202 to 0.361

0.404

Genitourinary, grade ≥3

3 (14)

0 (0)

-0.019 to 0.291

0.125

CI: confidence interval; IMRT: intensity-modulated radiotherapy; 3D-CRT: 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy.

Nonrandomized Comparative Studies
Shih et al (2016) conducted a retrospective comparison of bowel obstruction following IMRT (n=120) or 3D-CRT (n=104) after hysterectomy for endometrial or cervical cancer.8, Groups were generally comparable, except more patients in the 3D-CRT group had open hysterectomy (81% vs 47%, p<0.001). Patients received regular examinations throughout a median follow-up of 67 months, and the 5-year rate of bowel obstruction was 0.9% in the IMRT group compared with 9.3% in the 3D-CRT group (p=0.006). A body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or more was also associated with less bowel obstruction. However, on multivariate analysis, the only significant predictor of less bowel obstruction was IMRT (p=0.022).

Chen et al (2014) reported on 101 patients with endometrial cancer treated with hysterectomy and adjuvant RT.9, No significant differences between IMRT patients (n=65) and CRT patients (n=36) were found in 5-year OS (82.9% vs 93.5%; p=0.26), local failure-free survival (93.7% vs 89.3%; p=0.68), or disease-free survival (88.0% vs 82.8%; p=0.83). However, the IMRT patients experienced fewer acute and late toxicities.

Chen et al (2007) examined the use of posthysterectomy RT in 68 women with high-risk cervical cancer.10, The initial 35 cases received 2-dimensional RT delivered to the whole pelvis; the next 33 patients underwent IMRT. All patients received RT at 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions and 6 Gy of high-dose rate vaginal cuff intracavitary brachytherapy in 3 insertions; chemotherapy (cisplatin) was administered concurrently to all patients. All patients completed the planned course of treatment. At a median follow-up of 34.6 months (range, 12-52 months) in 2-dimensional RT recipients and 14 months (range, 6-25 months) in IMRT recipients, the 1-year locoregional control rate was 94% for 2-dimensional RT and 93% for IMRT. Grade 1 or 2 acute GI toxicities were noted in 36% and 80% of IMRT and 2-dimensional RT recipients, respectively (p<0.001), while acute grade 1 or 2 GU toxicities occurred in 30% and 60%, respectively (p=0.022). There was no significant difference between IMRT and 2-dimensional RT in the incidence of acute hematologic toxicities. Overall, the IMRT patients had lower rates of chronic GI toxicities (p=0.002) than the 2-dimensional RT patients.

Section Summary: Gynecologic Cancers
The evidence on IMRT for gynecologic cancers includes 2 small RCTs (<50 patients each) and several nonrandomized comparative studies. There is limited comparative evidence on survival outcomes following IMRT or 3D-CRT. However, available results have generally been consistent that IMRT reduces GI and GU toxicity. Based on evidence with other cancers of the pelvis and abdomen in close proximity to organs at risk, it is expected that OS with IMRT would be at least as good as 3D-CRT, with a decrease in toxicity.

Anorectal Cancer
Randomized Controlled Trials
Rattan et al (2016) conducted a small (N=20) RCT assessing IMRT for the treatment of anal canal cancer.11, Grade 3 GI toxicity during treatment was not observed in any patients in the IMRT group but was seen in 60% of patients treated with 3D-CRT (p=0.010). Hematologic grade 3 toxicity was not seen in any patients treated with IMRT but was noted in 20% of patients treated with 3D-CRT (p=0.228). Other parameters indicating better tolerance to treatment with IMRT were reduced need for parenteral fluid (10% vs 60%, p=0.019) and blood transfusion (0% vs 20%, p=0.060).

Nonrandomized Comparative Studies
Sun et al (2017) reported on a comparative analysis of the National Cancer Database of IMRT with 3D-CRT for the treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma.12, A total of 7386 patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (45 to 54 Gy) from 2006 to 2013; 3330 (45%) received IMRT and 4065 (55%) received 3D-CRT. Use of IMRT increased from 24% in 2006 to 50% in 2013. Patient age, race, insurance status, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, hospital type, income and educations status, and clinical disease stage were not predictive of which RT was used. The mean radiation dose was higher with IMRT (4735 centigray vs 4608 centigray, p<0.001) and the occurrence of sphincter loss surgery was higher in the IMRT group (see Table 4). However, patients treated with IMRT had a higher risk of positive margins. Multivariate analysis found no significant differences between the treatments for pathologic downstaging, unplanned readmission, 30-day mortality, or long-term survival. This study used unplanned readmission as a surrogate measure of adverse events but could not assess acute or late toxicity.

Table 4. Outcomes Following Radiochemotherapy With 3D-CRT or IMRT for Rectal Cancer

Outcome

3D-CRT, %

IMRT, %

Adjusted Odds Ratio

95% CI

p

Pathologic downstaging

57.0

55.0

0.89

0.79 to 1.01

0.051

Sphincter loss surgery

28.3

34.7

1.32

1.14 to 1.52

<0.001

Positive resection margin

5.6

8.0

1.57

1.21 to 2.03

<0.001

Unplanned readmission

7.9

6.4

0.79

0.61 to 1.02

0.07

30-d mortality

0.8

0.6

0.61

0.24 to 1.57

0.31

Survival at 5 y

64

64

1.06

0.89 to 1.28

0.47

Adapted from Sun et al (2017).12,
CI: confidence interval; IMRT: intensity-modulated radiotherapy; 3D-CRT: 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy.

Huang et al (2017) reported on a retrospective comparison of outcomes and toxicity for preoperative image-guided IMRT and 3D-CRT in locally advanced rectal cancer.13, A total of 144 consecutive patients treated between 2006 and 2015 were analyzed. The 3D-CRT group was treated with 45 Gy in 25 fractions while the IMRT group was treated with 45 Gy in 25 fractions with a simultaneous integrated boost of 0.2 Gy per day for the primary tumor up to a total dose of 50 Gy. Statistical analysis was performed for grade 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 toxicity and was significant only for acute GI toxicity (p=0.039; see Table 5). Four-year OS and disease-free survival did not differ between the 2 groups. Multivariate analysis found IMRT to be an independent predictor of local failure-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.11 to 0.95; p=0.042).

Table 5. Grade 3 or Greater Toxicity Following Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

Comparison

3D-CRT (n=99), n (%)

IMRT (n=45), n (%)

Skin

3 (3)

1 (2.2)

Acute gastrointestinal

14 (14.1)

3 (6.7)

Acute genitourinary

3 (3)

0 (0)

Hematologic

2 (2.0)

0 (0)

Late gastrointestinal

10 (10.1)

2 (4.4)

Late genitourinary

3 (3.1)

0 (0)

Adapted from Huang et al (2017).13,
IMRT: intensity-modulated radiotherapy; 3D-CRT: 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy.

In a retrospective review of 89 consecutive patients (52 IMRT, 37 3D-CRT), Chuong et al (2013) found that 3-year OS, progression-free survival, locoregional control, and colostomy-free survival did not differ significantly between patients treated with IMRT or with 3D-CRT (p>0.1).14, Adverse events with 3D-CRT were more frequent and severe, and required more treatment breaks than IMRT (11 days vs 4 days; p=0.006) even though the median duration of treatment breaks did not differ significantly (12.2 days vs 8.0 days; p=0.35). IMRT patients had fewer acute grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity (p<0.001), improved late grade 3 or 4 GI toxicity (p=0.012), and fewer acute grade 3 or 4 skin toxicity (p<0.001) than 3D-CRT patients.

Dasgupta et al (2013) retrospectively reviewed 223 patients (45 IMRT, 178 CRT) to compare outcomes for anal cancer.15, They reported that 2-year OS, distant metastases-free survival, and locoregional recurrence-free survival did not differ significantly between patients in the IMRT and CRT groups.

Dewas et al (2012) retrospectively reviewed 51 patients with anal cancer treated with IMRT (n=24) or with 3D-CRT (n=27).16, Outcomes also did not differ significantly between patients in the IMRT and 3D-CRT groups in 2-year OS, locoregional relapse-free survival, and colostomy-free survival. Grade 3 acute toxicity occurred in 11 IMRT patients and in 10 3D-CRT patients.

Case Series
A GI toxicity study by Devisetty et al (2009) reported on 45 patients who received concurrent chemotherapy plus IMRT for anal cancer.17, IMRT was administered to a dose of 45 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions, with areas of gross disease subsequently boosted with 9 to 14.4 Gy. Acute GU toxicity was grade 0 in 25 (56%) cases, grade 1 in 10 (22%) patients, grade 2 in 5 (11%) patients, with no grade 3 or 4 toxicities reported; 5 (11%) patients reported no GU tract toxicities. Grades 3 and 4 leukopenia were reported in 26 (56%) cases, neutropenia in 14 (31%), and anemia in 4 (9%). Acute GI toxicity included grade 0 in 2 (4%) patients, grade 1 in 11 (24%), grade 2A in 25 (56%), grade 2B in 4 (9%), grade 3 in 3 (7%), and no grade 4 toxicities. Univariate analysis of data from these patients suggested a statistical correlation between the volume of bowel that received 30 Gy or more of radiation and the risk for clinically significant (grade ≥2) GI toxicities.

Pepek et al (2010) retrospectively analyzed of toxicity and disease outcomes associated with IMRT in 47 patients with anal cancer.18, Thirty-one patients had squamous cell carcinoma. IMRT was prescribed to a dose of at least 54 Gy to areas of gross disease at 1.8 Gy per fraction. Forty (89%) patients received concurrent chemotherapy with various agents and combinations. The 2-year actutimes OS for all patients was 85%. Eight (18%) patients required treatment breaks. Toxicities included grade 4 leukopenia (7%) and thrombocytopenia (2%); grade 3 leukopenia (18%) and anemia (4%); and grade 2 skin toxicity (93%). These rates were lower than those reported in previous trials of chemoradiation, where grade 3 or 4 skin toxicity was noted in about 50% of patients and grade 3 or 4 GI toxicity noted in about 35%. In addition, the rate of treatment breaks was lower than in many studies; and some studies of chemoradiation included a break from RT.

Section Summary: Anorectal Cancer
The evidence on IMRT for anorectal cancer includes a small RCT with 20 patients, nonrandomized comparative studies, and case series. Survival outcomes have not differed significantly between IMRT and 3D-CRT. Studies have found that patients receiving IMRT plus chemotherapy for the treatment of anal cancer experience fewer acute and late adverse events than patients receiving 3D-CRT plus chemotherapy, primarily in GI toxicity.

Summary of Evidence
For individuals who have GI tract cancers who receive IMRT, the evidence includes nonrandomized comparative studies and retrospective series. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. IMRT has been compared with 3D-CRT for the treatment of stomach, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic cancers. Evidence has been inconsistent with the outcome of survival, with some studies reporting increased survival among patients receiving IMRT compared with patients receiving 3D-CRT, and other studies reporting no difference between groups. However, most studies found that patients receiving IMRT experienced significantly less GI toxicity compared with patients receiving 3D-CRT. The available comparative evidence, together with dosimetry studies of organs at risk, would suggest that IMRT decreases toxicity compared with 3D-CRT in patients who had GI cancers.The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals who have gynecologic cancers who receive IMRT, the evidence includes 2 small randomized controlled trials and several nonrandomized comparative studies. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. There is limited comparative evidence on survival outcomes following IMRT or 3D-CRT. However, results are generally consistent that IMRT reduces GI and genitourinary toxicity. Based on evidence with other cancers of the pelvis and abdomen that are proximate to organs at risk, it is expected that overall survival with IMRT would be at least as good as 3D-CRT, with a decrease in toxicity. A reduction in GI toxicity is likely to improve the quality of life in patients with gynecologic cancer.The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals who have anorectal cancer who receive IMRT, the evidence includes a small randomized controlled trial (N=20), nonrandomized comparative studies, and case series. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Survival outcomes have not differed significantly between patients receiving IMRT and 3D-CRT. However, studies have found that patients receiving IMRT plus chemotherapy for the treatment of anal cancer experience fewer acute and late adverse events than patients receiving 3D-CRT plus chemotherapy, primarily in GI toxicity. A reduction in GI toxicity is likely to improve the quality of life in patients with anorectal cancer. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

Clinical Input From Physician Specialty Societies and Academic Medical Centers
While the various physician specialty societies and academic medical centers may collaborate with and make recommendations during this process, through the provision of appropriate reviewers, input received does not represent an endorsement or position statement by the physician specialty societies or academic medical centers, unless otherwise noted.

2012 Input
In response to requests, input was received from 1 physician specialty society (4 reviewers) and 3 academic medical centers while this policy was under review in 2012. Input was mixed, but there was support for use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in a number of cancers discussed herein. In general, this support was based on normal tissue constraints for radiation doses and whether these dose constraints could not be met without IMRT.

2010 Input
In response to requests, input was received from 1 physician specialty society (2 reviewers) and 3 academic medical centers while this policy was under review in 2010. There was support for use of IMRT in a number of cancers discussed herein. In general, this support was based on normal tissue constraints for radiation doses and whether these dose constraints could not be met without IMRT.

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements
National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines
Gastrointestinal Tract Cancers
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for gastric cancer (v.2.2018) indicate that intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) “may be used in clinical settings where reduction in dose to organs at risk (eg, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, small bowel) is required, which cannot be achieved by 3-D techniques.”19, In addition, target volumes need to be carefully defined and encompassed while taking into account variations in stomach filling and respiratory motion.

NCCN guidelines for hepatobiliary cancers (v.1.2018) state that “All tumors irrespective of the location may be amenable to radiation therapy (3D conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], or stereotactic body radiation therapy [SBRT]).”20,

IMRT is mentioned as an option in NCCN guidelines for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (v.1.2018), stating that 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or IMRT with breath-hold or gating techniques can improve coverage with decreased dose to organs at risk.21, In addition, “studies have shown that the tolerability of radiation is largely dependent on PTV [planning target volume] size/ENI [elective nodal irradiation], types of concurrent systemic/targeted therapy, and whether conformal (3-D, IMRT, SBRT) vs. conventional radiation is used.”

Gynecologic Cancers
For cervical cancer, NCCN guidelines (v.1.2018) indicate IMRT “may be helpful in minimizing the dose to the bowel and other critical structures in the post-hysterectomy setting and in treating the para-aortic nodes when necessary” such as “when high doses are required to treat gross disease in regional lymph nodes.”22, IMRT “should not be used as routine alternatives to brachytherapy for treatment of central disease in patients with an intact cervix.” The guidelines also mention that “very careful attention to detail and reproducibility (including consideration of target and normal tissue definitions, patient and internal organ motion, soft tissue deformation, and rigorous dosimetric and physics quality assurance) is required for proper delivery of IMRT and related highly conformal technologies.”

NCCN guidelines on uterine endometrial cancer (v.2.2018) state that radiotherapy for uterine neoplasms includes external-beam radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy, but that IMRT may be considered “for normal tissue sparing.” 23,

NCCN guidelines on ovarian cancer (v.2.2018) do not mention IMRT.24,

Anorectal Cancers
NCCN guidelines for anal carcinoma (v.1.2018) state that IMRT “is preferred over 3D conformal RT [radiotherapy] in the treatment of anal carcinoma”; and that “Its use requires expertise and careful target design to avoid reduction in local control by so-called ‘marginal-miss’.”25,

NCCN guidelines on rectal cancer (v.1.2018) indicate that “… IMRT … should only be used in the setting of a clinical trial or in unique clinical situations such as reirradiation of previously treated patients with recurrent disease or unique anatomical situations.”26,

American College of Radiology
The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (2014) recommended that IMRT is usually appropriate to treat anal cancer if performed outside of a protocol setting but is still undergoing study.27, The College also noted the most appropriate radiation dose for anal cancer has not been determined and quality control and technical problems are considered challenging with IMRT (eg, in target volume contouring).

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations
Not applicable.

Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials
Some currently unpublished trials that might influence this review are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Summary of Key Trials

NCT No.

Trial Name

Planned Enrollment

Completion Date

Ongoing

 

 

 

NCT01672892

Standard Versus Intensity-Modulated Pelvic Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Endometrial or Cervical Cancer

289

Dec 2018

NCT03239613

Postoperative Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with Concurrent Chemotherapy in Cervical Cancer: A Prospective Exploratory Trial (POHIM_CCRT Trial)

84

Apr 2024

NCT02151019

Randomised Phase II Study of Pre-operative 3-D Conformal Radiotherapy (3-DCRT) Versus Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

268

Jul 2030

NCT01164150

Prospective Randomized Phase II Trial Evaluating Adjuvant Pelvic Radiotherapy Using Either IMRT or 3-Dimensional Planning for Endometrial Cancer

154

Dec 2033

NCT: national clinical trial.

References

  1. Boda-Heggemann J, Hofheinz RD, Weiss C, et al. Combined adjuvant radiochemotherapy with IMRT/XELOX improves outcome with low renal toxicity in gastric cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Nov 15 2009;75(4):1187-1195. PMID 19409725
  2. Boda-Heggemann J, Weiss C, Schneider V, et al. Adjuvant IMRT/XELOX radiochemotherapy improves long-term overall- and disease-free survival in advanced gastric cancer. Strahlenther Onkol. May 2013;189(5):417-423. PMID 23558673
  3. Fuller CD, Dang ND, Wang SJ, et al. Image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) for biliary adenocarcinomas: Initial clinical results. Radiother Oncol. Aug 2009;92(2):249-254. PMID 19324442
  4. Lee KJ, Yoon HI, Chung MJ, et al. A comparison of gastrointestinal toxicities between intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Gut Liver. Mar 23 2016;10(2):303-309. PMID 26470767
  5. Prasad S, Cambridge L, Huguet F, et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy reduces gastrointestinal toxicity in locally advanced pancreas cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. Mar-Apr 2016;6(2):78-85. PMID 26577010
  6.  Naik A, Gurjar OP, Gupta KL, et al. Comparison of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity of intensity-modulated and three-dimensional radiotherapy in patients with cervix carcinoma: A randomized prospective study. Cancer Radiother. Jul 2016;20(5):370-376. PMID 27368915
  7. Gandhi AK, Sharma DN, Rath GK, et al. Early clinical outcomes and toxicity of intensity modulated versus conventional pelvic radiation therapy for locally advanced cervix carcinoma: a prospective randomized study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Nov 1 2013;87(3):542-548. PMID 24074927
  8. Shih KK, Hajj C, Kollmeier M, et al. Impact of postoperative intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on the rate of bowel obstruction in gynecologic malignancy. Gynecol Oncol. Oct 2016;143(1):18-21. PMID 27486131
  9. Chen CC, Wang L, Lu CH, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and toxicity in endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant intensity-modulated radiation therapy or conventional radiotherapy. J Formos Med Assoc. Dec 2014;113(12):949-955. PMID 24144528
  10. Chen MF, Tseng CJ, Tseng CC, et al. Clinical outcome in posthysterectomy cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent Cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy: comparison with conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Apr 1 2007;67(5):1438-1444. PMID 17394944
  11. Rattan R, Kapoor R, Bahl A, et al. Comparison of bone marrow sparing intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in carcinoma of anal canal: a prospective study. Ann Transl Med. Feb 2016;4(4):70. PMID 27004217
  12. Sun Z, Adam MA, Kim J, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy is not associated with perioperative or survival benefit over 3D-conformal radiotherapy for rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. Jan 2017;21(1):106-111. PMID 27510332
  13. Huang CM, Huang MY, Tsai HL, et al. A retrospective comparison of outcome and toxicity of preoperative image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional pelvic radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. J Radiat Res. Mar 01 2017;58(2):247-259. PMID 27738080
  14. Chuong MD, Freilich JM, Hoffe SE, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs. 3D conformal radiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Gastrointest Cancer Res. Mar 2013;6(2):39-45. PMID 23745158
  15. Dasgupta T, Rothenstein D, Chou JF, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy in the treatment of anal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis. Radiother Oncol. May 2013;107(2):189-194. PMID 23692961
  16. Dewas CV, Maingon P, Dalban C, et al. Does gap-free intensity modulated chemoradiation therapy provide a greater clinical benefit than 3D conformal chemoradiation in patients with anal cancer? Radiat Oncol. Nov 2012;7:201. PMID 23190693
  17. Devisetty K, Mell LK, Salama JK, et al. A multi-institutional acute gastrointestinal toxicity analysis of anal cancer patients treated with concurrent intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and chemotherapy. Radiother Oncol. Nov 2009;93(2):298-301. PMID 19717198
  18. Pepek JM, Willett CG, Wu QJ, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for anal malignancies: a preliminary toxicity and disease outcomes analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Dec 1 2010;78(5):1413-1419. PMID 20231064
  19. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Gastric Cancer. Version 2.2018. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/gastric.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2018.
  20. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Hepatobiliary Cancers. Version 1.2018. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/hepatobiliary.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2018.
  21. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Version 1.2018. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pancreatic.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2018.
  22. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Cervical Cancer. Version 1.2018. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/cervical.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2018.
  23. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Uterine Neoplasms. Version 2.2018. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/uterine.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2018.
  24. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Ovarian Cancer. Version 2.2018. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ovarian.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2018.
  25. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Anal Carcinoma. Version 1.2018. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/anal.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2018.
  26. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Rectal Cancer. Version 1.2018. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2018.
  27. Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology-Rectal/Anal Cancer, Hong TS, Pretz JL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria(R)-Anal Cancer. Gastrointest Cancer Res. Jan 2014;7(1):4-14. PMID 24558509

Coding Section 

Codes Number Description
CPT 77301 Intensity modulated radiotherapy plan, including dose volume histograms for target and critical structure partial tolerance specification
  77338 Multileaf collimator device(s) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), design and construction per IMRT plan
  77385 Intensity modulated radiation treatment delivery (IMRT), includes guidance and tracking, when performed; simple (new code 01/01/15)
  77386 complex (new code 01/01/15)
  77418 Intensity modulated treatment delivery, single or multiple fields/arcs, via narrow spatially and temporally modulated beams, binary dynamic multileaf collimator, per treatment session (code deleted 12/31/14)
  0073T Compensator-based beam modulation treatment delivery of inverse planned treatment using three or more high resolution compensator convergent beam modulated fields, per treatment session (code deleted 12/31/14)
HCPCS G6015 Intensity modulated treatment delivery, single or multiple fields/arcs, via narrow spatially and temporally modulated beams, binary, dynamic MLC, per treatment session (new code 01/01/15)
  G6016 Compensator-based beam modulation treatment delivery of inverse planned treatment using 3 or more high resolution (milled or cast) compensator, convergent beam modulated fields, per treatment session (new code 01/01/15)
ICD-9-CM Diagnosis 151.0-151.9 Malignant neoplasm of stomach, code range
  152.0-152.9 Malignant neoplasm of small intestine code range
  153.0-153.9 Malignant neoplasm of colon code range
  154.0-154.8 Malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction and anus code range (154.2 and 154.3 are specific to the anal canal and anus, unspecified)
  155.0-155.2 Malignant neoplasm of liver and intrahepatic bile ducts code range
  156.0-156.9 Malignant neoplasm of gallbladder and extrahepatic bile ducts code range
  157.0-157.9 Malignant neoplasm of pancreas code range
  158.0-158.9 Malignant neoplasm of retroperitoneum and peritoneum code range
  159.0-159.9 Malignant neoplasm of other and ill-defined sites within the digestive organs and peritoneum code range
  179 Malignant neoplasm of uterus, part unspecified
  180.0-180.9 Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri code range
  182.0-182.8 Malignant neoplasm of body of uterus code range
  183.0-183.9 Malignant neoplasm of ovary and other uterine adnexa code range
  184.0-184.9 Malignant neoplasm of other and unspecified female genital organs code range
ICD-10-CM (effective 10/01/15) C16.0-C16.9

Malignant neoplasm of stomach, code range 

  C17.0-C17.9 Malignant neoplasm of small intestine code range 
  C18.0-C18.9 Malignant neoplasm of colon code range 
  C19 Malignant neoplasm of rectosigmoid junction 
  C20 Malignant neoplasm of rectum
  C21.0-C21.8 Malignant neoplasm of anus, code range 
  C22.0-C22.9 Malignant neoplasm of liver and intrahepatic bile ducts code range 
  C23 Malignant neoplasm of gallbladder 
  C24.0-C24.9 Malignant neoplasm of other and unspecified parts of biliary tract code range 
  C25.0-C25.9 Malignant neoplasm of pancreas code range 
  C26.0-C26.9 Malignant neoplasm of other and ill-defined sites within the digestive organs and peritoneum code range 
  C51.0-C51.9 Malignant neoplasm of vulva code range
  C52 Malignant neoplasm of vagina 
  C53.0-C53.9 Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri code range 
  C54.0-C54.9 Malignant neoplasm of corpus uteri code range 
ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/01/15)   ICD-10-PCS codes are only used for inpatient services. There is no specific ICD-10-PCS code for this imaging. 
Type of Service    
Place of Service    

Procedure and diagnosis codes on Medical Policy documents are included only as a general reference tool for each policy. They may not be all-inclusive. 

This medical policy was developed through consideration of peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, U.S. FDA approval status, nationally accepted standards of medical practice and accepted standards of medical practice in this community, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association technology assessment program (TEC) and other non-affiliated technology evaluation centers, reference to federal regulations, other plan medical policies and accredited national guidelines.

"Current Procedural Terminology© American Medical Association.  All Rights Reserved" 

History From 2014 Forward     

05/02/2019 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating rationale and description. 

05/15/2018 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating description, rationale and references. 

05/22/2017 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating background, description, rationale, references and guidelines. 

05/03/2016 

Annual review, no change to policy intent.

05/12/2015 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updated background, description, rationale, references and guidelines. Added coding. 

05/05/2014

Annual review. Added related policies. Updatedg guidelines, rationale and references. No change to policy intent.


Go Back