Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24798985›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2014

Principles and reality of proton therapy treatment allocation.

Justin E Bekelman, David A Asch, Zelig Tochner, Joseph Friedberg, David J Vaughn, Ellen Rash, Kevin Raksowski, Stephen M Hahn

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Justin E BekelmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: bekelman@uphs.upenn.edu.
David A AschLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; The Wharton School and Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Zelig TochnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Joseph FriedbergDepartment of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
David J VaughnDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ellen RashDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Kevin RaksowskiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Stephen M HahnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
University of Pennsylvania · USPenn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System · US

Funding

Effectiveness of Radiotherapy for Prostate CancerK07CA163616 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BEKELMAN, JUSTIN · 2012 to 2016
$875k
NCI NIH HHS 1K07CA16316-01NCI NIH HHS K07 CA163616
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo present the principles and rationale of the Proton Priority System (PROPS), a priority points framework that assigns higher scores to patients thought to more likely benefit from proton therapy, and the distribution of PROPS scores by patient characteristics METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between PROPS scores and receipt of proton therapy, adjusted for insurance status, gender, race, geography, and the domains that inform the PROPS score.

resultsAmong 1529 adult patients considered for proton therapy prioritization during our Center's ramp-up phase of treatment availability, PROPS scores varied by age, diagnosis, site, and other PROPS domains. In adjusted analyses, receipt of proton therapy was lower for patients with non-Medicare relative to Medicare health insurance (commercial vs Medicare: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.64; managed care vs Medicare: OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28-0.56; Medicaid vs Medicare: OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13-0.44). Proton Priority System score and age were not significantly associated with receipt of proton therapy.

conclusionsThe Proton Priority System is a rationally designed and transparent system for allocation of proton therapy slots based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. Because the actual allocation of treatment slots depends mostly on insurance status, payers may consider incorporating PROPS, or its underlying principles, into proton therapy coverage policies.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPatient SelectionAdultAgedAge FactorsCancer Care FacilitiesFemaleHumansInsurance CoverageInternational Classification of DiseasesLogistic ModelsMaleMedicareMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPhiladelphia

Identifiers

PMID24798985
PMCPMC4278661
OpenAlexW2115646554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.