Proton Beam Radiation Therapy (for Nebraska Only)

Coverage Summary

UnitedHealthcare's Nebraska-specific PBT policy (CS105NE.T) applies only to members located in the State of Nebraska and governs coverage of proton beam radiation therapy for individuals 19 years of age and older; individuals younger than 19 are covered without further review. The policy defines a limited set of proven/medically necessary adult indications (four listed: base of skull tumors, localized unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma meeting specified constraints, intracranial AVMs, and ocular tumors) and describes exception criteria and documentation expectations. Overall, the policy notes a mixed evidence base across adult indications and characterizes the evidence strength as predominantly low-to-moderate, while acknowledging several disease sites with stronger supporting data.

Key coverage facts

Age thresholdPolicy applies to individuals 19 years and older (patients <19 covered without further review)

State-specific scopePolicy applies only to Nebraska

Proven Adult Indications ListedBase of skull tumors; localized unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with documented inability to spare normal tissue and when internal radiation/transarterial therapy contraindicated or infeasible; intracranial AVMs; ocular tumors (including uveal melanoma)

Evidence StrengthEvidence quality: predominantly low-to-moderate; stronger for skull base, ocular tumors, select HCC and AVMs

Guideline PositionGuideline recommendations are conditional/selective (NCCN/ASTRO/AUA guidance: PBT appropriate in select cases when OAR sparing necessary; prostate considered clinically equivalent to IMRT)

Medical-Necessity Criteria

Definitive Therapy (Covered/Proven)

Covered when ALL of the following are met:

ALL of the following

Treatment location: Service provided in the State of Nebraska (this policy applies only to Nebraska).
Member age: Individual is 19 years of age or older (policy applies to adults; note: proton beam therapy is covered without further review for individuals younger than 19 years of age).
ONE of the following definitive therapy indications must be present:
- Base of skull tumors (examples include chordomas, chondrosarcomas, paranasal sinus, or nasopharyngeal tumors).

Unproven / Not Medically Necessary Indications

Unproven Indications

Quality evidence is limited for the following indications; further randomized trials and long-term outcomes are warranted:

Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) — evidence is uncertain; RT (including PBT) has insufficient high-quality data and is not recommended by AAO.
Bladder cancer (muscle-invasive) — small registry/retrospective and single-institution studies; evidence insufficient to establish PBT as integral to trimodal therapy.
Brain and spinal cord tumors (adult diffuse gliomas, chordoma, chondrosarcoma, meningioma, low-grade glioma) — studies mostly retrospective or single-institution; PBT may reduce dose to healthy tissue but survival outcomes comparable to photon RT; more randomized trials needed.
Breast cancer (early/non-metastatic) — low quality evidence suggests relative safety and potential effectiveness but no RCTs demonstrating superiority; more high-quality RCTs needed.

Evidence and Guideline Summary

The evidence summary for prostate cancer and guideline assessments shows mixed-quality evidence and no clear superiority of PBT over photon techniques. Systematic reviews and HTAs note promising disease control but limited randomized comparative data. The AUA/ASTRO (2022) guideline conditionally recommends proton therapy as an option for clinically localized prostate cancer but states it has not been found superior to other radiation modalities; NCCN (2024) considers photon and proton RT both effective with no clear evidence for benefit of one over the other and permits conventionally fractionated PBT at experienced centers. HTA assessments (e.g., Hayes) rate the overall evidence as limited and call for additional well-designed comparative trials. Professional societies (ASTRO, ACR/ARS) similarly support consideration of PBT in selected contexts where normal tissue sparing is clinically important, while recognizing the need for further RCTs and long-term comparative outcomes.

Selected evidence metrics

HCC pooled outcomesMeta-analysis (22 studies, n=1,858): pooled 3‑ and 5‑year local PFS 88% and 86%; pooled grade 3 hepatic toxicity ~1–2%

AVM obliteration ratesSeries report obliteration rates ~64–70%; obliteration associated with nidus volume and dose; 5‑ and 10‑year cumulative obliteration up to 70% and 91% in some series

Ocular melanoma outcomesSystematic reviews: 5‑year local control >90%; 5‑year OS 70–85%; 5‑year enucleation rates 7–10%

Coding

Proton treatment delivery (CPT)CPT

77520	Proton treatment delivery; simple, without compensation.
77522	Proton treatment delivery; simple, with compensation.
77523	Proton treatment delivery; intermediate.
77525	Proton treatment delivery; complex.

Radiation treatment planning and delivery (CPT/HCPCS/G-codes)mixed

77301	Intensity modulated radiotherapy plan, including dose-volume histograms for target and critical structure partial tolerance specifications.
77338	Multi-leaf collimator (MLC) 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.
77386	Intensity modulated radiation treatment delivery (IMRT), includes guidance and tracking, when performed; complex.
77387	Guidance for localization of target volume for delivery of radiation treatment, includes intrafraction tracking, when performed.
G6015	Intensity modulated treatment delivery, single or multiple fields/arcs, via narrow spatially and temporally modulated beams, binary, dynamic MLC, per treatment session.
G6016	Compensator-based beam modulation treatment delivery of inverse planned treatment using three or more high resolution compensator, per treatment session.
G6017	Intra-fraction localization and tracking of target or patient motion during delivery of radiation therapy, each fraction of treatment.

Diagnosis codes referenced (ICD-10-CM)ICD-10

C11.0	Malignant neoplasm of superior wall of nasopharynx.
C11.1	Malignant neoplasm of posterior wall of nasopharynx.
C11.2	Malignant neoplasm of lateral wall of nasopharynx.
C11.3	Malignant neoplasm of anterior wall of nasopharynx.
C11.8	Malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of nasopharynx.
C11.9	Malignant neoplasm of nasopharynx, unspecified.
C22.0	Liver cell carcinoma.
C30.0	Malignant neoplasm of nasal cavity.
C31.0	Malignant neoplasm of maxillary sinus.
C31.1	Malignant neoplasm of ethmoidal sinus.

1–10 of 61

1/7

Provider Actions

Documentation Required

Evaluation must include comparison of treatment plans

Evaluation for exception requests must include a direct comparison of treatment plans. Comparative planning documentation should show the PBT plan alongside photon-based plans (IMRT and SBRT) for the specific individual to demonstrate inability of photon techniques to achieve equivalent normal-tissue sparing.

Documentation Required

Documentation to support HCC PBT coverage

For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) requests, provide documentation that supports PBT coverage, including clinical rationale and treatment planning showing that surrounding normal tissue cannot be spared with standard photon techniques.

Affected codes: C22.0, 77520, 77522, 77523, 77525

Background

Proton beam therapy uses charged protons to deliver a more confined radiation dose with minimal exit dose beyond tumor boundaries, potentially reducing radiation exposure to surrounding normal tissues compared with photon-based EBRT. Dosimetrically, PBT can concentrate dose within the tumor and spare adjacent organs at risk. Clinical evidence is heterogeneous across adult solid tumors: data are stronger for skull base tumors and ocular (uveal) melanoma (systematic reviews report high local control and low severe toxicity), for certain hepatocellular carcinoma scenarios (pooled analyses show high local PFS and low grade 3 hepatic toxicity), and for intracranial AVMs/PSRS (series report substantive obliteration rates), while evidence for many other adult solid tumors remains limited or mixed.

Definitions (key terms used in the policy):

- Definitive Therapy: radiation treatments for cancer with a curative intent.

- PBT / PBRT: proton beam radiation therapy, a particle therapy modality intended to reduce radiation dose to surrounding normal tissues compared with photon (X-ray) RT.

- OAR (Organs at Risk): normal tissue structures sensitive to radiation exposure.

- PSPT: Passive Scattering Proton Therapy (a proton delivery technique).

- IMRT: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (photon-based advanced planning/delivery technique).

Revision History

11/01/2025addedLatest

Created state-specific policy version for the state of Nebraska (no change to coverage guidelines).

08/01/2025revised

Revised coverage criteria to require evaluation includes a comparison of treatment plans for PBT, IMRT, and SBRT for the specific individual (replaced prior wording that referenced comparison of Definitive Therapy plans and removed list of example unproven/not medically necessary indications).

08/01/2025revised

Updated Clinical Evidence and References sections to reflect the most current information; previous policy version CS105.S archived.

Not Medically Necessary / Unproven (Exceptions)

Not Medically Necessary / Unproven (exceptions may be considered case‑by‑case):

ALL of the following

Proton beam therapy is unproven and not medically necessary for indications other than those listed as covered above due to insufficient evidence of efficacy for treating other conditions.
Exception criteria (requests may be evaluated case-by-case when BOTH criteria are met)
- Documentation is provided that sparing of the surrounding normal tissue cannot be achieved with standard photon radiation therapy techniques (including IMRT and SBRT).
- Evaluation includes a comparison of individualized treatment plans for PBT, IMRT, and SBRT for the specific member (plan dosimetry comparisons and rationale must be supplied).
Requests for PBT for diagnoses not listed as proven (including recurrences or metastases) may be reviewed under the exception criteria above and will be evaluated taking into account available evidence, guideline/assessment conclusions, and clinical coverage rationale.
Prostate Cancer Evidence Summary: Systematic reviews and comparative studies to date have not demonstrated clear superiority of PBT over modern photon techniques (such as IMRT) for prostate cancer in clinically meaningful outcomes; therefore, PBT is considered clinically equivalent to IMRT and coverage decisions are based on medical necessity principles and plan/benefit specifics.
Guideline/Assessment Conclusions (multi-site): National guideline assessments note potential dosimetric advantages of proton therapy for select anatomic sites (for example, base of skull tumors, ocular tumors, and some CNS indications) but conclude that evidence is limited or insufficient to show superiority of PBT over advanced photon techniques for most adult solid tumors. Consequently, many guidelines recommend PBT for specific indications where dosimetric or clinical benefit is established and with caution for other sites pending higher-quality comparative data.
Clinical coverage rationale evidence summary: Proton beam therapy offers a distinct physical dose distribution (Bragg peak) that can reduce dose to normal tissues compared with photons; for certain tumors (e.g., skull base chordomas/chondrosarcomas, intracranial AVMs, intraocular tumors, and selected unresectable HCC) observational data and disease‑specific series report favorable local control and acceptable toxicity profiles supporting coverage. For most other adult indications, randomized controlled trial evidence demonstrating improved net clinical benefit (survival, local control, or clinically significant reductions in late toxicity) compared with modern photon techniques is lacking. Where PBT is requested for non‑listed diagnoses, individualized dosimetric comparisons and documentation that photon techniques cannot achieve adequate normal tissue sparing are required to consider an exception.