1

Clinical Policy Title: Radiofrequency ablation of tumors

Clinical Policy Number: 05.03.08

Effective Date: April 1, 2018

Initial Review Date: February 6, 2018

Most Recent Review Date: March 6, 2018

Next Review Date: March 2019

Related policies:

CP# 05.02.09 Radioembolization and chemoembolization for liver cancer and other indications

CP# 12.03.04 Radiofrequency ablation of uterine fibroids

ABOUT THIS POLICY: Select Health of South Carolina has developed clinical policies to assist with making coverage determinations. Select

Health of South Carolina’s clinical policies are based on guidelines from established industry sources, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), state regulatory agencies, the American Medical Association (AMA), medical specialty professional societies, and peer-reviewed professional literature. These clinical policies along with other sources, such as plan benefits and state and federal laws and regulatory requirements, including any state- or plan-specific definition of “medically necessary,” and the specific facts of the particular situation are considered by Select Health of South Carolina when making coverage determinations. In the event of conflict between this clinical policy and plan benefits and/or state or federal laws and/or regulatory requirements, the plan benefits and/or state and federal laws and/or regulatory requirements shall control. Select Health of South Carolina’s clinical policies are for informational purposes only and not intended as medical advice or to direct treatment. Physicians and other health care providers are solely responsible for the treatment decisions for their patients. Select Health of South Carolina’s clinical policies are reflective of evidence-based medicine at the time of review. As medical science evolves, Select Health of South Carolina will update its clinical policies as necessary. Select Health of South Carolina’s clinical policies are not guarantees of payment.

Coverage policy

Select Health of South Carolina considers the use of radiofrequency ablation to be clinically proven and,

therefore, medically necessary in members aged 18 years and older for treatment of tumors that are

accessible to the procedure and at least 1 cm from major organs or structures that could be injured by

thermal conduction, including:

Hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by biopsy or imaging (National Comprehensive Care

Network [NCCN], 2017a; Interqual, 2016; American College of Radiology [ACR], 2015):

- Bridge therapy to maintain candidacy for liver transplantation.

- When a member is medically inoperable, ineligible for liver transplantation, or

refuses resection, and has either:

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer early-stage (defined as a single tumor < 5 cm at

its longest axis, or two or three tumors each ≤ 3 cm, Child-Pugh A-B, and

performance status 0) with no extrahepatic disease.

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer intermediate stage (defined as a single large

tumor or multinodular disease, preserved liver function, and no

extrahepatic spread or macrovascular invasion) and tumors have been

Policy contains:

Radiofrequency

ablation.

Neoplasms.

Osteoid osteomas.

Barrett’s esophagus.

2

downsized to a single tumor ≤ 5 cm or two to three tumors each ≤ 3 cm

following transarterial therapy.

Liver metastases confirmed by biopsy or imaging when all of the following criteria are met

(NCCN, 2017a, b, c, f; ACR, 2015; Interqual, 2016):

- Tumors ≤ 5 cm.

- Ineligible for surgical resection.

- For members with colorectal cancer, metastases are confined to the liver.

- For members with neuroendocrine tumor involvement, persistent symptoms after

medical treatment with somatostatin analogs.

Renal cell carcinoma when all of the following criteria are met (NCCN, 2018; Interqual,

2017):

- Stage I (T1a). - Confirmed by biopsy. - Single tumor > 1 cm and ≤ 4 cm. - No metastasis.

Symptomatic osteolytic bone metastases in members who have failed, or are poor

candidates for, standard pain treatments such as radiation or opioids (Rosian, 2017;

Rosenthal, 2012; Warmuth, 2012).

Primary or secondary lung cancers (NCCN, 2018; National Institute for Health and Care

Excellence [NICE], 2010a):

- Early-stage, resectable (stage I-II, N0) non-small cell lung cancer in members who

are medically inoperable or refuse surgery (Bi, 2016; Sher, 2011).

- For members: who are not candidates for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy,

external beam radiation therapy, or sublobar resection; who have failed stereotactic

ablative radiotherapy; or for whom local control may not be the highest priority

(NCCN, 2018).

Primary therapy for:

Intestinal metaplasia (Barrett’s esophagus) (Almeida, 2016; NICE, 2014; NICE,

2010b).

Early-stage esophageal or esophagogastric cancer (pTis, pT1a, pTibN0) with or

without endoscopic resection (NCCN, 2017d).

After esophageal resection for residual or recurrent high-grade or low-grade esophageal

dysplasia (NCCN, 2017d; Evans, 2013).

Thyroid cancer for locoregional control when standard therapy (e.g., surgery or local

therapies) is contraindicated, has failed, or is refused (NCCN, 2017e; NICE, 2016).

Metastatic (synchronous stage IV) soft tissue sarcoma of the trunk, extremity, head, or neck

(NCCN, 2018c; Gronchi, 2016):

- Primary local therapy when confined to a single organ and limited tumor bulk.

- Palliative therapy for symptomatic disseminated disease.

Select Health of South Carolina considers the use of radiofrequency ablation to be clinically proven and,

therefore, medically necessary for treatment of osteoid osteomas that cannot be managed successfully

3

with medical treatment, are accessible to the procedure, and at least 1 cm from major organs or

structures that could be injured by thermal conduction (Rosenthal, 2012; Warmuth, 2012).

Limitations:

The effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for indications other than the ones listed above has not

been established. Radiofrequency ablation may be considered on a case-by-case basis for removal of

other primary or metastatic malignant neoplasms when either:

Removal of the neoplasm may be curative and the member is unable to tolerate or refuses

surgical resection or radiation therapy.

Palliative debulking or complete removal may relieve symptoms.

Relative contraindications include (NCCN, 2017a, b, c; Interqual, 2016):

Ablative margins measuring less than 1 cm (i.e., tumors should be located at least 1 cm from

critical structures or vessels to achieve complete tumor destruction), except in cases of

palliation or debulking.

More than three tumors per organ. However, the number of lesions should not be

considered an absolute contraindication to radiofrequency ablation if successful treatment

of all metastatic deposits can be accomplished.

Untreatable or unmanageable coagulopathy is an absolute contraindication to radiofrequency ablation.

Alternative covered services:

Standard of care specific to each tumor.

Background

Radiofrequency ablation applies heat using high-frequency alternating current via electrodes placed

within the tissue to induce tissue coagulation and cell death (Friedman, 2004). It is one of several types

of ablative therapies used to treat a wide range of cardiac, neurologic, vascular, and oncologic

conditions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies radiofrequency ablation as an

electrosurgical, cutting, and coagulation device with 510(k) marketing submission requirements (FDA,

2017).

Radiofrequency ablation can be applied percutaneously, laparoscopically, or at open surgery. The choice

of technique will depend on: the patient’s condition; tumor size, number, location, and growth pattern;

and operator and local practice patterns. It may be performed in outpatient or inpatient settings under

general anesthesia, conscious sedation, or deep sedation (Friedman, 2004).

4

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation is a minimally invasive, repeatable procedure performed under

radiologic guidance. The percutaneous approach requires that tumors not lie adjacent to other organs

or vessels that could be injured by thermal conduction. Surgical approaches allow a more accurate

evaluation of disease in and around the organ and present less risk to adjacent structures. The open

approach allows for concurrent combination therapies, such as resection and placement of pumps for

regional chemotherapy (Friedman, 2004).

This policy will focus on radiofrequency ablation as treatment for tumors and pre-malignant conditions,

excluding treatment of uterine fibroids. See Clinical policy #12.03.04 Radiofrequency ablation of uterine

fibroids.

Searches

Select Health of South Carolina searched PubMed and the databases of:

UK National Health Services Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s National Guideline Clearinghouse and other

evidence-based practice centers.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

We conducted searches on January 8, 2018. Search terms were: "Catheter Ablation" (MeSH),

"Neoplasms" (MeSH), and the free text terms “radiofrequency ablation” and “RFA.”

We included:

Systematic reviews, which pool results from multiple studies to achieve larger sample sizes

and greater precision of effect estimation than in smaller primary studies. Systematic

reviews use predetermined transparent methods to minimize bias, effectively treating the

review as a scientific endeavor, and are thus rated highest in evidence-grading hierarchies.

Guidelines based on systematic reviews.

Economic analyses, such as cost-effectiveness, and benefit or utility studies (but not simple

cost studies), reporting both costs and outcomes — sometimes referred to as efficiency

studies — which also rank near the top of evidence hierarchies.

Findings

Radiofrequency ablation was initially indicated as a treatment option for inoperable hepatic tumors. The

liver is a common site for metastasis from solid tumors, and many are unsuitable for surgical excision

because of their number, distribution, or the presence of extrahepatic spread (NCCN, 2017a).

Increasingly, radiofrequency ablation is becoming an attractive treatment option for locoregional

control, palliation, and, in some circumstances, cure of other solid tumors, including some operable

tumors for which well-established local or systemic treatment alternatives are available. For patients

5

who present with significant surgical risks or who have significant competing comorbidities,

radiofrequency ablation balances potential cure, locoregional control, or palliation with treatment

toxicity and benefits common to any minimally invasive procedure (e.g., preserving normal organ tissue,

decreasing morbidity, decreasing length of hospitalization).

Existing evidence and clinical experience supports radiofrequency ablation as a safe procedure in the

hands of an experience specialist and effective in tumor destruction, which may be associated with

higher survival rates for some cancers. The most common complications include post-procedural pain,

fever, and burns. An absolute contraindication is uncontrolled coagulopathy. Other relative

contraindications primarily relate to tumor location and underlying organ function.

To be amenable to ablation, typically a 1 cm margin of tumor-free tissue is needed, except in cases of

palliation or debulking, and the tumor must be in an accessible location and away from major organs

and vessels. Currently, there is no standard tumor size or number of tumors appropriate for ablation;

however, studies have found improved outcomes when tumors 4 cm or smaller are treated (NCCN,

2017a, b, c; Interqual, 2016). Typically, choice of ablative technique is based on tumor size

(radiofrequency ablation is most effective for treating tumors < 3 cm at their longest axis) and location

and underlying organ function (NCCN, 2017a). Except for studies of osteoid osteoma, most studies

included patients older than 17 years.

Radiofrequency ablation is an established treatment alternative for the following hepatic indications

(NCCN, 2017a, b, c; ACR, 2015):

Early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma:

- Curative therapy for isolated tumors ≤ 3 cm (in select cases, up to 5 cm).

- Locoregional therapy in medically inoperable patients.

Neoadjuvant therapy as a bridge to transplant.

Isolated colorectal liver metastasis < 3 cm to 5 cm.

There is sufficient evidence to support radiofrequency ablation as a locoregional treatment option for

the following extrahepatic indications:

Early-stage renal cell carcinoma without metastasis (NCCN, 2018a).

Symptomatic osteolytic bone metastases in persons who have failed, or are poor candidates

for, standard treatments such as radiation or opioids (Rosian, 2017; Rosenthal, 2012;

Warmuth, 2012).

Osteoid osteomas that cannot be managed successfully with medical treatment (Rosenthal,

2012; Warmuth, 2012).

Primary or secondary lung cancers (NCCN, 2018b; NICE, 2010a):

- Early-stage, resectable (stage I-II, N0) non-small cell lung cancer in patients who are

medically inoperable or refuse surgery (Bi, 2016; Sher, 2011).

- For patients who are not candidates for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, external

beam radiation therapy, or sublobar resection; who have failed stereotactic ablative

6

radiotherapy; or for whom local control may not be the highest priority (NCCN,

2018b).

Primary therapy for intestinal metaplasia (Barrett’s esophagus) (NCCN, 2017d; Almeida,

2016; NICE, 2014; NICE, 2010b).

Residual or recurrent high-grade or low-grade esophageal dysplasia after esophageal

resection (NCCN, 2017d; Evans, 2013).

Thyroid cancer for locoregional control when standard therapy (e.g., surgery or local

therapies) is contraindicated, has failed, or is refused (NCCN, 2017e).

Metastatic (synchronous stage IV) soft tissue sarcoma of the trunk, extremity, head, or neck

(NCCN, 2018c):

Primary local therapy when confined to a single organ and limited tumor bulk.

Palliative therapy for symptomatic disseminated disease.

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of radiofrequency ablation for treatment of any other

malignant primary tumor or benign tumor, such as Morton’s neuroma (American Orthopaedic Foot and

Ankle Society, 2018; Valerio, 2017; Peek, 2016; Association of Extremity Nerve Surgeons, 2014; Fegrachi,

2014; Fischer, 2012b).

Policy updates:

None.

Summary of clinical evidence:

Citation Content, Methods, Recommendations

Rosian (2017) for the

Ludwig Boltzmann Institut

für Health Technology

Assessment (LBIHTA)

Radiofrequency ablation

for metastatic spinal

lesions

Key points:

Systematic review of four prospective single-arm studies and five retrospective single-arm

studies with at least 30 patients. Data on safety and efficacy were evaluated in 471 and

112 patients, respectively.

Significant improvement in pain relief (three prospective studies) and health-related

quality of life (two studies) after treatment with radiofrequency ablation and vertebroplasty.

No recurrence of vertebral metastases during follow-up (one study).

No major radiofrequency ablation-related complications were reported.

Adverse event rate (procedure-related or not procedure-related) = 18% (105/583

patients); most frequent radiofrequency ablation-related adverse events were increased

pain and numbness (7.8%, 6/77 patients); most frequent adverse event reported related

to vertebroplasty was cement extravasation (18.7%, 67/358 patients).

Valerio (2017)

New and established

technology in focal

ablation of the prostate

Key points:

Systematic review of 37 studies (3,230 total patients) of focal therapy using seven

sources of energy in single-arm retrospective and prospective development studies,

including one case series on radiofrequency.

7

Citation Content, Methods, Recommendations

Focal therapy seems to have a minor impact on quality of life and genito-urinary function.

Oncological effectiveness is yet to be defined against standard of care.

Almeida (2016, update of

Xie, 2009) for the

Technology Assessment

Unit of McGill University

Health Centre

Radiofrequency ablation

for treatment of Barrett’s

esophagus

Key points:

Systematic review and cost analysis of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), eight

single‐arm cohort studies, and one systematic review for high-grade dysplasia, and two

RCTs, one single-arm cohort study, and two meta-analyses for low-grade dysplasia.

Considered standard of care for treatment of high-grade dysplasia based on good-quality

evidence of effectiveness and safety in eliminating dysplastic tissue and higher morbidity

associated with esophagectomy.

More controversial for low-grade dysplasia based on lower quality evidence of diagnostic

accuracy, uncertainty surrounding the progression rates to cancer, and the spontaneous

reversion in some patients. Routine use not recommended but may be considered in

patients with risk factors suggestive of higher risk of progression to high-grade

dysplasia/cancer (e.g., multifocal, long segment, or persistent Barrett’s esophagus).

Bi (2016)

Comparison of the

effectiveness of

radiofrequency ablation

with stereotactic body

radiation therapy in

inoperable stage I non-

small cell lung cancer

Key points:

Systematic review and pooled analysis of 31 primarily case series of stereotactic body

radiation therapy (2,767 patients) and 13 studies of radiofrequency ablation (328

patients).

Local tumor control rates (95% confidence interval) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years:

- Radiofrequency ablation = 77% (70% to 85%), 48% (37% to 58%), 55% (47% to

62%), and 42% (30% to 54%), respectively.

- Stereotactic body radiation therapy = 97% (96% to 98%), 92% (91% to 94%),

88% (86% to 90%), and 86% (85% to 88%) (P < .001).

Differences remained significant after correcting for stage IA and age (P < .001 at 1 year,

2 years, and 3 years; P = .04 at 5 years).

No statistically significant difference in overall survival between modalities (P > .05).

Most frequent complication of radiofrequency ablation was pneumothorax (31%) and of

stereotactic body radiation therapy was (grade ≥ 3) radiation pneumonitis (2%)

Chen (2016)

Radiofrequency ablation

for treatment of benign

thyroid nodules

Key points:

Systematic review and meta-analysis 20 single-arm studies comprising data from 1,090

patients with 1,406 benign thyroid nodules.

Overall quality: low with significant publication bias.

Radiofrequency ablation significantly decreased nodule volume at 1, 3, 6, 12, and the last

follow-up months compared to baseline, including a decline by cold and hot nodules.

Radiofrequency ablation decreased the largest diameter, symptom score, cosmetic score,

triiodothyronine level, and vascular scale, had no effect in free thyroxine, and increased

thyrotropin level.

Peek (2016)

Minimally invasive ablative

techniques in the

treatment of breast cancer

Key points:

Systematic review and meta-analysis of 63 studies, including 1,608 patients with breast

tumors treated with radiofrequency ablation, high-intensity focused ultrasound, and cryo-,

laser-, or microwave-ablation.

8

Citation Content, Methods, Recommendations

Highest rate of complete ablation was achieved with radiofrequency ablation (87.1%,

491/564 patients) and microwave ablation (83.2%, 89/107 patients).

Microwave ablation had the highest rate of short-term complications (14.6%, 21/144

patients).

Overall recurrence rate = 4.2% (24/570 patients) and most often with laser ablation

(10.7%, 11/103 patients).

Radiofrequency ablation had the shortest treatment times (15.6 ± 5.6 min) and high-

intensity focused ultrasound the longest (101.5 ± 46.6 min).

Adequately powered and prospectively conducted cohort trials are needed to confirm

complete pathological ablation in all patients.

Fegrachi (2014)

Radiofrequency ablation

for unresectable locally

advanced pancreatic

cancer

Key points:

Systematic review of five non-comparative studies (158 total patients).

Overall quality: low with high risk of bias and heterogeneous study populations and

outcomes.

Median survival after radiofrequency ablation = three months to 33 months.

Procedure-related morbidity = 4% to 37%, overall mortality = 0% to 19%, overall morbidity

= 10% to 43%. Pooling of data was not done due to heterogeneous study populations and

outcomes.

Radiofrequency ablation appears safe when used with the correct temperature and at an

appropriate distance from vital structures, but multi-center RCTs are needed to determine

the true effect size of radiofrequency ablation and to minimize bias.

Fischer (2012a) for the

LBIHTA

Radiofrequency ablation

for the treatment of benign

and malignant nodules of

endocrine organs (thyroid

gland and adrenal gland)

Key points:

Systematic review of three case series of benign thyroid nodules, one case series of

thyroid cancer, and two case series of adrenal tumors.

Overall quality: very low.

Thyroid tumors: radiofrequency ablation is safe and improves tumor-related symptoms.

Adrenal tumors: radiofrequency ablation is safe and possibly improves aldosteronism and

reduces recurrence.

Higher-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Fischer (2012b) for the

LBIHTA

Radiofrequency ablation

for the treatment of head

and neck cancer

Key points:

Systematic review identified one case series of 21 patients with various recurrent or

unresectable/inoperable head and neck cancer aged around 63 years. Follow up =

approximately 44 days; drop-out rate = 38%.

Marginal improvement in quality of life, median survival was four months, 45% with

serious complications, and 5% procedure-related mortality.

Rosenthal (2012)

Critical review and state of

the art in interventional

oncology: benign and

metastatic disease

involving bone

Key points:

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation is an important treatment for both benign bone

tumors and palliation of metastases involving bone and soft-tissue sites beyond the liver

and lung.

Image-guided radiofrequency ablation is now the standard treatment for osteoid osteoma,

as the procedure can be performed with higher rates of technical success, decreased

morbidity, and lower cost than those with open surgery.

9

Citation Content, Methods, Recommendations

Several ablation methods can effectively treat focal metastatic skeletal disease, primarily

with the goal of durable palliation of pain, particularly when conventional therapies,

including chemotherapy and external-beam radiation, have failed.

Warmuth (2012) for the

LBIHTA

Radiofrequency ablation of

bone tumors (osteoid-

osteoma and osseus

metastases)

Key points:

Systematic review of four prospective case series (175 total patients aged 15 years to 23

years) of radiofrequency ablation for osteoid osteomas with a maximum tumor size = 15

mm, and two prospective case series (79 total patients aged 58 years to 62 years) with

osseous metastases with a mean tumor size of 5 cm.

Osteoid osteomas: residual and recurrent symptoms (pain) in 5% to 26% and 0% to 8% of

patients, respectively. Procedure-associated morbidity varied from 0% to 26%.

Painful osseous metastases: statistically significant reduced pain and improved mood at

one and three months following radiofrequency ablation. The local recurrence rate was

42% after 6 months. Intervention-associated pain was observed in 11% to 75% of

patients, other adverse events were seen in 2% to 13% of patients.

Sher (2011)

Cost-effectiveness

analysis of stereotactic

body radiation therapy and

radiofrequency ablation for

medically inoperable,

early-stage non-small cell

lung cancer

Key points:

Markov model describes health states of 65-year-old men with medically inoperable non-

small cell lung cancer after treatment with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy,

stereotactic body radiation therapy, and radiofrequency ablation. Patients were assumed

to receive supportive care after recurrence. Utility values, recurrence risks, and costs

were adapted from the literature, and sensitivity analyses performed.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy was the most cost-effective treatment over a wide

range of treatment and disease assumptions. On the basis of efficacy and cost,

stereotactic body radiation therapy should be the primary treatment approach for this

disease.

References

Professional society guidelines/other:

American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria®:

Early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer. Date of origin: 2013. ACR website.

https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3082798/Narrative/. Accessed January 9, 2018.

Radiologic management of hepatic malignancy. Date of origin: 2007. Last review date: 2015.

ACR website. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69379/Narrative. Accessed January 9, 2018.

American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Morton's Neuroma. American Orthopaedic Foot and

Ankle Society website. http://www.aofas.org/PRC/conditions/Pages/Conditions/Mortons-

Neuroma.aspx. Accessed January 14, 2018.

Association of Extremity Nerve Surgeons. Denervation. Clinical Practice Guidelines. Edition 1. 2014.

Association of Extremity Nerve Surgeons website.

https://www.aens.us/images/aens/AENSGuidelinesFinal-12082014.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2018.

10

Evans JA, Early DS, Chandraskhara V, et al. The role of endoscopy in the assessment and treatment of

esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013; 77(3): 328-334. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.001.

Gronchi A, Guadagnolo BA, Erinjeri JP. Local Ablative Therapies to Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma. Am

Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016; 35: e566-575. DOI: 10.14694/edbk_157450.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. NCCN website.

www.nccn.org. Accessed January 9, 2018:

Colon cancer. Version 2.2017.(b)

Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers. Version 4.2017.(d)

Hepatobiliary cancers. Version 4.2017.(a)

Gastric cancer. Version 5.2017.(g)

Kidney cancer. Version 2.2018.(a)

Neuroendocrine tumors. Version 3.2017.(f)

Non-small cell lung cancer. Version 2.2018.(b)

Rectal cancer. Version 3.2017.(c)

Soft tissue sarcoma. Version 1.2018.(c)

Thyroid carcinoma. Version 2.2017.(e)

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE):

Endoscopic bipolar radiofrequency ablation for treating biliary obstruction caused by

cholangiocarcinoma or pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Interventional procedures guidance

[IPG464]. Published date: September 2013. NICE website.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg464. Accessed January 10, 2018.

Epithelial radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus [IPG344]. Evidence-based

recommendations on epithelial radiofrequency ablation for treating Barrett's oesophagus.

Interventional procedures guidance. Published May 2010.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg344. Accessed January 10, 2018.(b)

Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus with low‑grade dysplasia or

no dysplasia. Interventional procedures guidance [IPG496]. Published date: July 2014.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg496. Accessed January 10, 2018.

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for primary or secondary lung cancers. Interventional

procedures guidance [IPG372]. Published date: December 2010. NICE website.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg372. Accessed January 10, 2018.(a)

Radiofrequency ablation for symptomatic interdigital (Morton’s) neuroma [IPG539].

Evidence-based recommendations on radiofrequency ablation for symptomatic interdigital

(Morton’s) neuroma. Interventional procedures guidance. Published December 2015. NICE

website. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg539. Accessed January 10, 2018.

11

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for benign thyroid nodules.

Interventional procedures guidance [IPG562]. Published date: June 2016. NICE website.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg562. Accessed January 10, 2018.

Peer-reviewed references:

Bi N, Shedden K, Zheng X, Kong FS. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation With

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Inoperable Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systemic

Review and Pooled Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 95(5): 1378-1390. DOI:

10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.04.016.

Chen F, Tian G, Kong D, Zhong L, Jiang T. Radiofrequency ablation for treatment of benign thyroid

nodules: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Medicine (Baltimore).

2016; 95(34): e4659. DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000004659.

FDA Product Classification database searched using product code GEI. FDA website.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm. Accessed January 14,

2018.

Fegrachi S, Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, van Hillegersberg R, Molenaar IQ. Radiofrequency ablation

for unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. HPB (Oxford). 2014; 16(2):

119-123. DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12097.

Fischer S, Zechmeister-Koss I. Radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of benign and malignant

nodules of endocrine organs (thyroid gland and adrenal gland). [Radiofrequenzablation bei benignen

und malignen Veränderungen endokriner Organe (Schilddrüse und Nebenniere)]. Systematischer

Review. Decision Support Dokument Nr. 56; 2012. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health

Technology Assessment (LBIHTA). 2012. LBIHTA website. http://eprints.hta.lbg.ac.at/960/1/DSD_56.pdf.

Accessed January 10, 2018.(a)

Fischer S, Zechmeister-Koss I. Radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of head and neck cancer.

[Radiofrequenzablation bei Kopf- und Halstumoren]. Systematischer Review. Decision Support

Dokument Nr. 55; 2012. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment. 2012.

LBIHTA website. http://eprints.hta.lbg.ac.at/959/1/DSD_55.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2018.(b)

Friedman M, Mikityansky I, Kam A, et al. Radiofrequency Ablation of Cancer. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.

2004; 27(5): 427-434. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-004-0062-0.

Interqual® criteria. 2016 Procedures Criteria. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or transarterial

embolization, (TACE), liver. McKesson Corporation. San Francisco, California.

12

Interqual® criteria. 2017 Procedures Criteria. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or cryoblation, renal.

McKesson Corporation. San Francisco, California.

Peek MC, Ahmed M, Napoli A, et al. Minimally invasive ablative techniques in the treatment of breast

cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Hyperthermia. 2016: 1-12. DOI:

10.1080/02656736.2016.1230232.

Rosenthal D, Callstrom MR. Critical Review and State of the Art in Interventional Oncology: Benign and

Metastatic Disease Involving Bone. Radiology. 2012; 262(3): 765-780. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11101384.

Sher DJ, Wee JO, Punglia RS. Cost-effectiveness analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy and

radiofrequency ablation for medically inoperable, early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat

Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 81(5): e767-774. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.074.

Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, et al. New and Established Technology in Focal Ablation of the

Prostate: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2017; 71(1): 17-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.044.

Warmuth M, Nachtnebel A. Radiofrequency ablation of bone tumors (Osteoid-osteoma and bone

metastases). [Radiofrequenzablation bei Knochentumoren (Osteoid-Osteom und Knochenmetastasen).

Systematischer Review. Decision Support Dokument Nr. 54; 2012. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für

Health Technology Assessment. LBIHTA website. http://eprints.hta.lbg.ac.at/958/1/DSD_54.pdf.

Accessed January 10, 2018.

Xie X, McGregor M, Dendukuri N. Radiofrequency ablation for treatment of Barrett’s esophagus: A

systematic review and cost analysis. Montreal (Canada): Technology Assessment Unit (TAU) of the

McGill University Health Centre (MUHC); 2009. Report no. 49. 37 p. Available at:

http://www.mcgill.ca/tau/files/tau/BARRETTs_ESOPHAGUS_REPORT.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2018.

CMS National Coverage Determinations (NCDs):

No NCDs identified as of the writing of this policy.

A52928 Sources of Information and Basis for Decision Noncovered Services LCD. CMS website.

https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/article-

details.aspx?articleId=52928&ver=15. Accessed January 14, 2018. Addresses cryoablation explicitly, but

only references articles about RFA.

Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs):

No LCDs identified as of the writing of this policy.

Commonly submitted codes

13

Below are the most commonly submitted codes for the service(s)/item(s) subject to this policy. This is

not an exhaustive list of codes. Providers are expected to consult the appropriate coding manuals and

bill accordingly.

CPT Code Description Comments

20982

Ablation therapy for reduction or eradication of 1 or more bone tumors (eg,

metastasis) including adjacent soft tissue when involved by tumor extension,

percutaneous, including imaging guidance when performed; radiofrequency

32998

Ablation therapy for reduction or eradication of one or more pulmonary

tumor(s) including pleura or chest wall when involved by tumor extension,

percutaneous, radiofrequency, unilateral

43270

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, flexible, transoral; with ablation of tumor(s),

polyp(s), or other lesion(s) (includes pre-hyphen and post-hyphendilation and

guide wire passage, when performed)

44369

Small intestinal endoscopy, enteroscopy, beyond second portion of

duodenum, not including ileum; with ablation of tumor(s), polyp(s) or other

lesion(s) not amenable to removal by hot biopsy forceps, bipolar cautery or

snare technique

47380 Ablation, open, of one or more liver tumor(s); radiofrequency

47381 Cryosurgical

47382 Ablation, one or more liver tumor(s), percutaneous, radiofrequency

50592 Ablation, 1 or more renal tumor(s), percutaneous, unilateral, radiofrequency

53850 Transurethral destruction of the prostate tissue; by microwave thermotherapy

53852 by radiofrequency thermotherapy

ICD-10 Code Description Comments

C16.0 - C18.9 Malignant neoplasm of stomach, small intestine, and colon [metastatic

gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) with limited progression]

C34.00 - C34.92 Malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung

C49.0 - C49.9

Malignant neoplasm of other connective and soft tissue of upper limb,

including shoulder, lower limb, including hip, and trunk unspecified [in

symptomatic persons with disseminated metastases]

C64.1 - C64.9 Malignant neoplasm of kidney, except renal pelvis

C78.00 - C78.02 Secondary malignant neoplasm of lung

D02.20 -D02.22 Carcinoma in situ bronchus and lung

D16.00 - D16.9 Benign neoplasm of bone and articular cartilage [osteoid osteoma] [not

covered for chondroblastoma]

N18.3 Chronic kidney disease, stage 3 (moderate)

N18.4 Chronic kidney disease, stage 4 (severe)

N18.5 Chronic kidney disease, stage 5

Q60.0 Renal agenesis, unilateral

Z90.5 Acquired absence of kidney

14

HCPCS

Level II Code Description Comments

C1886 Cather, extravascular tissue ablation, any modality