I'm a provider
You will be redirected to myBlue. Would you like to continue?
Please wait while you are redirected.
be RxSmart
Medical & Coding Policies
Provider Network Application
Out-of-State & Non-Network
Printer Friendly Version Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Central Nervous System Tumors
DESCRIPTIONRadiation therapy is an integral component in the treatment of many brain tumors, both benign and malignant. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been proposed as a method of radiation therapy that allows adequate radiation therapy to the tumor while minimizing the radiation dose to surrounding normal tissues and critical structures.Radiation Therapy and Brain Tumors The standard approach to the treatment of brain tumors depends on the type and location of tumor. For glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a malignant high-grade tumor, treatment is multimodal, with surgical resection followed by adjuvant radiation therapy and chemotherapy. For benign and low-grade brain tumors, gross total resection remains the primary goal. However, radiation therapy may be used in selected cases. Some examples are when total resection is not possible, when a more conservative surgical approach may be necessary to achieve long-term treatment goals, and with atypical tumors that may need radiotherapy even after gross total resection to reduce the risk of local recurrence. Therefore, radiation therapy, either definitive or in the postoperative adjuvant setting, remains an integral component in the management of residual, recurrent, and/or progressive benign and low-grade brain tumors for maximizing local control. Brain metastases occur in up to 40% of adults with cancer and can shorten survival and detract from quality of life. Many patients who develop brain metastases will eventually die of progressive intracranial disease. Among patients with good performance status, controlled extracranial disease, favorable prognostic features, and a solitary brain metastasis, randomized studies have shown that surgical excision followed by whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) prolongs survival. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) may be able to replace surgery in certain circumstances, delivering obliteratively high single doses to discrete metastases. For bulky cerebral metastases, level one evidence has also shown that delivering a higher radiation dose with an SRS boost is beneficial in addition to standard WBRT. The use of a concomitant boost with IMRT during WBRT has been attempted to improve overall local tumor control without the use of SRS to avoid additional planned radiation after WBRT (“Phase II” or SRS) and its additional labor and expense. Radiation Techniques Conventional external beam radiation therapy. Over the past several decades, methods to plan and deliver radiation therapy 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 radiation therapy.” 3-dimensional conformal radiation (3D-CRT). 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 radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). IMRT, which uses computer software and CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images, offers better conformality than 3D-CRT as it is able to modulate the intensity of the overlapping radiation beams projected on the target and to use multiple shaped treatment fields. It uses a device (a multileaf collimator, MLC) which, coupled to 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 and surrounding tissues and organs at risk, computer software optimizes the location, shape and intensities of the beams 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. Since most tumors move as patients breathe, dosimetry with stationary targets may not accurately reflect doses delivered within target volumes and adjacent tissues in patients. Furthermore, treatment planning and delivery are more complex, time-consuming, and labor-intensive for IMRT than for 3D-CRT. Thus, clinical studies must test whether IMRT improves tumor control or reduces acute and late toxicities when compared with 3D-CRT. Methodological Issues with IMRT Studies Multiple-dose planning studies have generated 3D-CRT and IMRT treatment plans from the same scans, then compared predicted dose distributions within the target and in adjacent organs at risk. Results of such planning studies show that IMRT improves on 3D-CRT with respect to conformality to, and dose homogeneity within, the target. Dosimetry using stationary targets generallyconfirms these predictions. Thus, radiation oncologists hypothesized that IMRT may improve treatment outcomes compared with those of 3D-CRT. However, these types of studies offer indirect evidence on treatment benefit from IMRT, and it is difficult to relateresults of dosing studies to actual effects on health outcomes. Comparative studies of radiation-induced side effects from IMRT versus alternative radiation delivery are probably the most important type of evidence in establishing the benefit of IMRT. Such studies would answer the question of whether the theoretical benefit of IMRT in sparing normal tissue translates into real health outcomes. Single-arm series of IMRT can give some insights into the potential for benefit, particularly if an adverse effect that is expected to occur at high rates is shown to decrease by a large amount. Studies of treatment benefit are also important to establish that IMRT is at least as good as other types of delivery, but in the absence of such comparative trials, it is likely that benefit from IMRT is at least as good as with other types of delivery. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a number of devices for use in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), including several linear accelerators and multileaf collimators. Examples of approved devices and systems are the NOMOS Slit Collimator (BEAK™) (NOMOS Corp.), the Peacock™ System (NOMOS Corp.), the Varian Multileaf Collimator with dynamic arc therapy feature (Varian Oncology Systems), the Saturne Multileaf Collimator (GE Medical Systems), the Mitsubishi 120 Leaf Multileaf Collimator (Mitsubishi Electronics America Inc.), the Stryker Leibinger Motorized Micro Multileaf Collimator (Stryker Leibinger), the Mini Multileaf Collimator, model KMI (MRC Systems GMBH), and the Preference® IMRT Treatment Planning Module (Northwest Medical Physics Equipment Inc.). Related policies are –
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POLICYIntensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) may be considered medically necessary for the treatment of tumors of the central nervous system when the tumor is in close proximity to organs at risk (brain stem, spinal cord, cochlea and eye structures including optic nerve and chiasm, lens and retina) and 3-D CRT planning is not able to meet dose volume constraints for normal tissue tolerance. (see Policy Guidelines)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POLICY EXCEPTIONSFederal Employee Program (FEP) may dictate that all FDA-approved devices, drugs or biologics may not be considered investigational and thus these devices may be assessed only on the basis of their medical necessity.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POLICY GUIDELINESOrgans at risk are defined as normal tissues whose radiation sensitivity may significantly influence treatment planning and/or prescribed radiation dose. These organs at risk may be particularly vulnerable to clinically important complications from radiation toxicity. The following table outlines radiation doses that are generally considered tolerance thresholds for these normal structures in the CNS:
Radiation tolerance doses for the cochlea have been reported to be 50 Gy aTD 5/5, the average dose that results in a 5% complication risk within 5 years bTD 50/5, the average dose that results in a 50% complication risk within 5 years Investigative service is defined as the use of any treatment procedure, facility, equipment, drug, device, or supply not yet recognized by certifying boards and/or approving or licensing agencies or published peer review criteria as standard, effective medical practice for the treatment of the condition being treated and as such therefore is not considered medically necessary. The coverage guidelines outlined in the Medical Policy Manual should not be used in lieu of the Member's specific benefit plan language.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POLICY HISTORY07/19/2012: Approved by Medical Policy Advisory Committee.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SOURCE(S)Blue Cross Blue Shield Association policy #8.01.59
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CODE REFERENCECovered CodesThis is not intended to be a comprehensive list of codes. Some covered procedure codes have multiple descriptions. The code(s) listed below are ONLY covered if the procedure is performed according to the "Policy" section of this document.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
