I'm a provider
You will be redirected to myBlue. Would you like to continue?
Please wait while you are redirected.
For certain stages of certain cancers, postoperative radiation therapy improves outcomes for many patients. Adding radiation to chemotherapy also improves outcomes for those with inoperable tumors that have not metastasized beyond regional lymph nodes. 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 (CRT).
Treatment planning evolved by using 3-dimensional images, usually from computed tomography (CT) scans, to delineate the tumor, its boundaries with adjacent normal tissue, and organs at risk for radiation damage. Radiation oncologists used these images, displayed from a "beam’s-eye view," to shape each of several beams with compensators, blocks, or wedges to conform to the patient’s tumor geometry perpendicular to the beam’s axis. 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. However, "forward" planning used a trial and error process to select treatment parameters including the number of beams and the intensity, shape, and incident axis of each. The radiation oncologist modified one or more parameters and re-calculated dose distributions, if analysis predicted underdosing for part of the tumor or overdosing of nearby normal tissue. Furthermore, because beams had uniform cross-sectional intensity wherever they bypassed shaping devices, it was difficult to match certain geometries, in particular concave surfaces. Collectively, these methods are termed 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT).
In the mid-1990s, 3D conformal methods were further developed to permit beam delivery with non-uniform cross-sectional intensity. This technique often relies on a device (a multi-leaf collimator, MLC) situated between the beam source and patient that moves along an arc around the patient. As it moves, a computer varies aperture size independently and continuously for each leaf. Thus, MLCs divide beams into narrow "beamlets," with intensities that range from zero to 100% of the incident beam. With an alternative, termed tomotherapy, a small radiation portal emitting a single narrow beam moves spirally around the patient, with intensity varying as it moves.Each method (MLC-based or tomotherapy) is coupled to a computer algorithm 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 and shape of beam ports, and beam and beamlet intensities, to achieve the treatment plan’s goals. Collectively, these methods are termed intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).
Multiple 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 generally confirms these predictions. Thus, radiation oncologists hypothesized that IMRT may improve treatment outcomes compared with those of 3D-CRT by one or more of the following mechanisms.
Increased conformality may permit escalated tumor doses without increasing normal tissue toxicity, and may thus improve local tumor control. Better dose homogeneity within the target may also improve local tumor control by avoiding underdosing (cold spots) within the tumor and may decrease toxicity by avoiding overdosing (hot spots). Finally, enhanced conformality for standard doses may reduce dose outside the target volume and thus decrease toxicity.
However, IMRT aims radiation at the tumor from many more directions, and thus subjects more normal tissue to low-dose radiation than occurs with CRT or 3D-CRT. This method may increase late effects of radiation therapy. In addition, because 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. Testing this hypothesis requires direct comparative data on outcomes for separate groups of similar patients treated with each method.
Head and Neck Tumors
Head and neck cancers account for about 3% to 5% of cancer cases in the United States. The generally accepted definition of head and neck cancers includes cancers arising in the oral cavity and lip, larynx, hypopharynx, oropharynx, nasopharynx, paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity, salivary glands, and occult primaries in the head and neck region. Cancers generally not considered as head and neck cancers include uveal and choroidal melanoma, cutaneous tumors of the head and neck, esophageal cancer, and tracheal cancer. Thyroid cancers are also addressed in this policy. External beam radiation therapy is uncommonly used in the treatment of thyroid cancers but may be considered in patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer and for locoregional control in patients with incompletely resected high-risk or recurrent differentiated (papillary, follicular, or mixed papillary-follicular) thyroid cancer.
POLICYIntensity-modulated radiation therapy may be considered medically necessary for the treatment of head and neck cancers.
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy is considered medically necessary for the treatment of thyroid cancers in close proximity to organs at risk (esophagus, salivary glands, and spinal cord) and 3-D CRT planning is not able to meet dose volume constraints for normal tissue tolerance. (see Policy Guidelines).
POLICY EXCEPTIONSFederal Employee Plan: Effective January 1, 2010, prior approval for outpatient IMRT is required. As of July 1, 2010, prior approval is no longer required for outpatient IMRT provided for the treatment of head and neck cancers.
Federal 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 GUIDELINESFor this policy, head and neck cancers are cancers arising from the oral cavity and lip, larynx, hypopharynx, oropharynx, nasopharynx, paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity, salivary glands, and occult primaries in the head and neck region.
Organs 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 area of the thyroid.
Radiation Tolerance Doses for Normal Tissues
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
The coverage guidelines outlined in the Medical Policy Manual should not be used in lieu of the Member’s specific benefit plan language.
POLICY HISTORY5/26/2009: Policy added
7/16/2009: Approved by Medical Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC)
12/28/2009: Added Prior Approval for FEP members effective January 1, 2010. Also corrected a typographical error, changed CPT Code 77148 to 77418.
07/16/2010: Policy Exceptions section revised to state that as of July 1, 2010, prior approval is no longer required for outpatient IMRT provided for the treatment of head and neck cancers for FEP members.
08/17/2010: Add CPT code 77338 to the Covered Codes table.
12/30/2010: Policy statement revised to indicate that intensity-modulated radiation therapy is considered investigational for the treatment of thyroid cancers.
07/19/2012: Policy statement on head and neck cancers unchanged. Policy statement on thyroid tumors changed from investigational to the following: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy is considered medically necessary for the treatment of thyroid cancers in close proximity to organs at risk (esophagus, salivary glands, and spinal cord) and 3-D CRT planning is not able to meet dose volume constraints for normal tissue tolerance. Policy guidelines updated regarding radiation tolerance doses for normal tissues (esophagus, salivary glands, spinal cord). Added ICD-9 code 193 to the Covered Codes table.
08/13/2012: Added ICD-9 code 195.0 to the Covered Codes table.
10/23/2013: Policy reviewed; no changes.
SOURCESBlue Cross & Blue Shield Association policy # 8.01.48
CODE REFERENCEThis may not be a comprehensive list of procedure codes applicable to this policy.
The code(s) listed below are ONLY medically necessary if the procedure is performed according to the "Policy" section of this document.