|MP 8.01.27||Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation for Breast Cancer|
|Original Policy Date
|Last Review Status/Date
Reviewed with literature search/2:2015
|Return to Medical Policy Index|
Our medical policies are designed for informational purposes only and are not an authorization, or an explanation of benefits, or a contract. Receipt of benefits is subject to satisfaction of all terms and conditions of the coverage. Medical technology is constantly changing, and we reserve the right to review and update our policies periodically.
HSCT refers to a procedure in which hematopoietic stem cells are infused to restore bone marrow function in cancer patients who receive bone-marrow-toxic doses of cytotoxic drugs with or without whole body radiotherapy. Hematopoietic stem cells may be obtained from the transplant recipient (autologous HSCT) or from a donor (allogeneic HSCT). They can be harvested from bone marrow, peripheral blood, or umbilical cord blood shortly after delivery of neonates. Although cord blood is an allogeneic source, the stem cells in it are antigenically “naive” and thus are associated with a lower incidence of rejection or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Cord blood is discussed in greater detail in Policy No. 7.01.50.
Immunologic compatibility between infused hematopoietic stem cells and the recipient is not an issue in autologous HSCT. However, immunologic compatibility between donor and patient is a critical factor for achieving a good outcome of allogeneic HSCT. Compatibility is established by typing of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) using cellular, serologic, or molecular techniques. HLA refers to the tissue type expressed at the class I and class II loci on chromosome 6. Depending on the disease being treated, an acceptable donor will match the patient at all or most of the HLA loci (with the exception of umbilical cord blood).
Conventional Preparative Conditioning for HSCT
The success of autologous HSCT is predicated on the ability of cytotoxic chemotherapy with or without radiation to eradicate cancerous cells from the blood and bone marrow. This permits subsequent engraftment and repopulation of bone marrow space with presumably normal hematopoietic stem cells obtained from the patient before undergoing bone marrow ablation. As a consequence, autologous HSCT is typically performed as consolidation therapy when the patient’s disease is in complete remission. Patients who undergo autologous HSCT are susceptible to chemotherapy-related toxicities and opportunistic infections prior to engraftment, but not GVHD.
The conventional (“classical”) practice of allogeneic HSCT involves administration of cytotoxic agents (eg, cyclophosphamide, busulfan) with or without total body irradiation at doses sufficient to destroy endogenous hematopoietic capability in the recipient. The beneficial treatment effect in this procedure is due to a combination of initial eradication of malignant cells and subsequent graft-versus-malignancy (GVM) effect mediated by non–self-immunologic effector cells that develop after engraftment of allogeneic stem cells within the patient’s bone marrow space. While the slower GVM effect is considered to be the potentially curative component, it may be overwhelmed by extant disease without the use of pretransplant conditioning. However, intense conditioning regimens are limited to patients who are sufficiently fit medically to tolerate substantial adverse effects that include pre-engraftment opportunistic infections secondary to loss of endogenous bone marrow function and organ damage and failure caused by the cytotoxic drugs. Furthermore, in any allogeneic HSCT, immune suppressant drugs are required to minimize graft rejection and GVHD, which also increases susceptibility of the patient to opportunistic infections.
Reduced-Intensity Conditioning for Allogeneic HSCT
Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) refers to the pretransplant use of lower doses or less intense regimens of cytotoxic drugs or radiation than are used in traditional full-dose myeloablative conditioning treatments. The goal of RIC is to reduce disease burden but also to minimize as much as possible associated treatment-related morbidity and nonrelapse mortality in the period during which the beneficial GVM effect of allogeneic transplantation develops. Although the definition of RIC remains arbitrary, with numerous versions employed, all seek to balance the competing effects of nonrelapse mortality and relapse due to residual disease. RIC regimens can be viewed as a continuum in effects, from nearly totally myeloablative to minimally myeloablative with lymphoablation, with intensity tailored to specific diseases and patient condition. Patients who undergo RIC with allogeneic HSCT initially demonstrate donor cell engraftment and bone marrow mixed chimerism. Most will subsequently convert to full-donor chimerism, which may be supplemented with donor lymphocyte infusions to eradicate residual malignant cells.
For the purposes of this policy, the term reduced-intensity conditioning will refer to all conditioning regimens intended to be nonmyeloablative, as opposed to fully myeloablative (traditional) regimens.
HSCT in Solid Tumors in Adults
HSCT is an established treatment for certain hematologic malignancies; however, its use in solid tumors in adults continues to be largely experimental. Initial enthusiasm for the use of autologous transplant with the use of HDC and stem cells for solid tumors has waned with the realization that dose intensification often fails to improve survival, even in tumors with a linear-dose response to chemotherapy. With the advent of reduced-intensity allogeneic transplant, interest has shifted to exploring the generation of alloreactivity to metastatic solid tumors via a graft-versus-tumor effect of donor-derived T cells.
Single or tandem autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation is considered not medically necessary to treat any stage of breast cancer.
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation is investigational to treat any stage of breast cancer.
In 2003, CPT centralized codes describing allogeneic and autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplant services to the hematology section (CPT 38204-38242). Not all codes are applicable for each high-dose chemotherapy/stem-cell support procedure. For example, Plans should determine if cryopreservation is performed. A range of codes describes services associated with cryopreservation, storage, and thawing of cells (38208-38215).
CPT 38208 and 38209 describe thawing and washing of cryopreserved cells
CPT 38210-38214 describe certain cell types being depleted
CPT 38215 describes plasma cell concentration
BlueCard/National Account Issues
For indications considered investigational, the following considerations may supersede this policy:
- State mandates requiring coverage for autologous bone marrow transplantation offered as part of clinical trials of autologous bone marrow transplantation approved by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
- Some plans may participate in voluntary programs offering coverage for patients participating in NIH-approved clinical trials of cancer chemotherapies, including autologous bone marrow transplantation.
- Some contracts or certificates of coverage (e.g., FEP) may include specific conditions in which autologous bone marrow transplantation would be considered eligible for coverage.
This policy was created in 1999 and is based on a search of the MEDLINE database through January 27, 2015.
History of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant for Breast Cancer
In the late 1980s/early 1990s, initial results of phase 2 trials for breast cancer and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) were promising, showing high response rates in patients with metastatic disease who underwent high-dose consolidation, with a subset of up to 30% remaining disease-free for prolonged periods.(1) In the early 1990s, larger prospective comparisons of conventionaldose chemotherapy to high-dose therapy with HSCT were initiated but accrued slowly, with up to a decade from initiation to the reporting of results.(1) The first results from randomized trials at a single institution in early stage and metastatic disease showed survival benefits but were ultimately shown to have been based on fraudulent data.(1) In the interim, however, the treatment became almost standard of care, while many patients received high-dose therapy off protocol, further reducing accrual to ongoing randomized trials.(1) The results of the randomized trials were presented beginning in 1999 and showed little survival benefit; subsequently, the number of HSCT procedures performed for breast cancer decreased from thousands every year to only a few.(1)
The PBT-1 trial randomly assigned patients with a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to induction therapy for previously untreated metastatic breast cancer to autologous HSCT (n=101) or to conventional-dose maintenance chemotherapy (n=83) for up to 2 years.(2) Of 553 patients enrolled and given initial induction therapy, only 310 achieved a PR (n=252) or CR (n=58), and only 199 were randomized. Of 72 partial responders assigned to the HSCT arm after initial induction therapy, only 5 (7%) were converted to CR. Median survival (24 vs 26 months, respectively) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years (32% vs 38%, respectively) did not differ between arms. There also were no statistically significant differences between arms in time to progression or progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years. While treatment duration was substantially shorter for those randomly assigned to HSCT, acute morbidity was markedly more severe than after conventional-dose maintenance.
During 2003 and 2004, 4 trials reported final outcomes analyses from randomized comparisons of autologous HSCT versus conventional-dose chemotherapy for adjuvant therapy of high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer.(3-6) Two of the studies involved women with at least 4 positive axillary lymph nodes, and the other 2 involved at least 10 positive lymph nodes. The 4 studies pooled included 2337 patients.
Evidence from these trials did not support the conclusion that autologous HSCT improved outcomes when compared with conventional-dose adjuvant therapy, as no OS difference was seen in any of the studies. An editorial that accompanied one of the trials briefly reviewed and commented on factors contributing to the diffusion of autologous HSCT into routine practice of the treatment of certain breast cancer patients, without adequate testing in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).(7)
A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis published in July 2005 pooled data from 6 RCTs on metastatic breast cancer reported through November 2004 (438 randomly assigned to autologous HSCT, 412 to conventional-dose therapy).(8) The relative risk (RR) for treatment-related mortality (TRM) was significantly higher in the arm randomly assigned to HSCT (15 vs 2 deaths; RR=4.07; 95% confidence
interval [CI], 1.39 to11.88). Treatment-related morbidity also was more severe among those randomly assigned to HSCT. OS did not differ significantly between groups at 1, 3, or 5 years after treatment. Statistically significant differences in event-free survival (EFS) at 1 year (RR=1.76; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.21) and 5 years (RR=2.84; 95% CI, 1.07 to 7.50) favored the HSCT arms. Only 1 of the 6 included trials that had followed up all patients for at least 5 years. Reviewers recommended further follow-up for patients randomized in the other 5 trials. They also concluded that, in the interim, patients with metastatic breast cancer should not receive HSCT outside of a clinical trial because available data showed greater TRM and toxicity without improved OS.
A second Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, also published in July 2005, included data from 13 RCTs on patients with high-risk (poor prognosis) early breast cancer (2535 randomly assigned to HSCT, 2529 to conventional-dose therapy).(8) TRM was significantly greater among those randomly assigned to high-dose chemotherapy (HDC)/autologous SCT (65 vs 4 deaths; RR=8.58; 95% CI, 4.13 to 17.80, respectively). Treatment-related morbidity also was more common and more severe in the high-dose arms. There were no significant differences between arms in OS rates at any time after treatment. EFS was significantly greater in the HSCT group at 3 years (RR=1.12; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.19, respectively) and 4 years (RR=1.30; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.45, respectively) after treatment. However, the 2 groups did not differ significantly with respect to EFS at 5 and 6 years after treatment. Quality-of-life scores were significantly worse in the HSCT arms than in controls soon after treatment, but differences were no longer statistically significant by 1 year. Reviewers concluded that available data were insufficient to support routine use of HSCT for patients with poor-prognosis early breast cancer.
Hanrahan et al, with a median follow-up of 12 years, demonstrated no recurrence-free or OS advantage for patients with high-risk primary breast cancer treated with autologous HSCT after standard dose chemotherapy (n=39) versus standard chemotherapy alone (n=39).(9) Coombes et al reported on autologous HSCT as adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer in women free of metastatic disease, with a median follow-up of 68 months.(10) A total of 281 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard chemotherapy or HDC with HSCT. They found no significant difference in relapse-free survival or OS (OS hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.75; p=0.40).
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2007 included RCTs comparing autologous HSCT with standard-dose chemotherapy in women with early, poor prognosis breast cancer, which included 13 trials to September 2006 with 5064 patients.(11) Major conclusions were that, at 5 years, EFS approached statistical significance for the high-dose group, but no OS differences were seen. There were more transplant-related deaths in the high-dose group. The end conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence to support routine use of autologous HSCT for treating early, poor prognosis breast cancer.
Crump et al reported the results of a randomized trial of women who had not previously been treated with chemotherapy and had metastatic breast cancer or locoregional recurrence after mastectomy.(12) After initial response to induction therapy, 112 women were allocated to standard chemotherapy and 112 to autologous HSCT. After a median follow-up of 48 months, 79 deaths were observed in the high-dose group and 77 in the standard chemotherapy group. No difference in OS was observed between the 2 groups after a median follow-up of 48 months, with a median OS of 24 months in the HSCT group (95% CI, 21 to 35 months) and 28 months for the standard chemotherapy group (95% CI, 22 to 33 months; HR=0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.2; p=0.43).
Biron et al reported the results of a phase 3, open, multicenter, prospective trial of women with metastatic breast cancer (and/or local or regional relapse beyond curative treatment by surgery or radiation).(13) After a CR or at least 50% PR to induction therapy, 88 women were randomly assigned to HSCT and 91 to no further treatment. No OS difference was seen between the 2 groups, with 3-year survival of 33.6% in the high-dose group and 27.3% in the observation group (p=0.8).
Zander et al reported survival data after 6 years of follow-up(14) on a trial that had previously been reported after 3.8 years of follow-up.(6) Women with surgically resected breast cancer and axillary lymph node dissection with 10 or more positive axillary lymph nodes but no evidence of metastatic disease were randomly assigned to standard chemotherapy (n=152) or HSCT (n=150). No difference in OS was observed; the estimated 5-year OS rate in the standard arm was 62% (95% CI, 54% to 70%) and 64% (95% CI, 56% to -72%) in the high-dose transplant group.
Nieto and Shpall performed a meta-analysis of all randomized trials published or updated since 2006, focusing on those that compared HDC with standard-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer.(15) The meta-analysis of 15 randomized trials involving patients with high-risk primary breast cancer or metastatic disease (N=6102) detected an absolute 13% EFS benefit in favor of HDC and autologous HSCT (p<0.001) at a median follow-up of 6 years. The absolute differences in diseasespecific and OS did not reach statistical significance (7 % and 5%, respectively). Subset analyses suggested that HDC could be particularly effective in patients with triple negative tumors (hormone receptor and HER2-negative). The authors concluded that HDC remains a valid research strategy in certain subpopulations with high-risk primary breast cancer, for example those with triple negative tumors.
Berry et al performed a meta-analysis with individual patient data from 15 randomized trials comparing autologous HSCT with HDC (n=3118) to standard chemotherapy (n=3092) for patients with high-risk primary breast cancer.(16) A survival analysis was adjusted for trial, age, number of positive lymph nodes, and hormone receptor status. HSCT was associated with a nonsignificant 6% reduction in risk of death (HR=0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.02; p=0.13) and a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence (HR=0.87; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.93; p<0.001). Toxic death was higher in the HSCT group with 72 (6%) of 1207 deaths in these trial arms compared with 17 (1.4%) of 1261 deaths in the standard therapy arms. In a subgroup analysis, the authors investigated whether age, number of positive lymph nodes, tumor size, histology, hormone receptor status, or HER2 status impacted survival when comparing HSCT versus standard treatment. The authors found that HER2-negative patients receiving HSCT had a 21% reduction in the risk of death and HER2-negative and hormone receptor negative patients receiving HSCT had a 33% reduction in the risk of death. In their discussion, the authors state that this relationship could be spurious due to the amount of missing data on HER2 status and suggest that HSCT is unlikely to show much benefit in these subgroups of patients.
A meta-analysis by Wang et al included aggregate data from 14 trials (N=5747) published since March 2010.(17) Clinical trials of patients receiving HSCT as a first-line treatment for primary breast cancer were eligible for inclusion. A higher TRM was found among the patients who received HSCT compared with standard chemotherapy (RR=3.42; 95% CI, 1.32 to 8.86). OS did not differ significantly between groups with an HR of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00) for the HSCT compared with standard treatment. Risk of secondary, nonbreast cancer was higher in the HSCT group (RR=1.28; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.98). Disease-free survival was better in the HSCT group compared with chemotherapy alone (RR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.99). Patients receiving HSCT had a greater risk of dying during remission than patients treated with nonmyeloablative chemotherapy because of the toxicity of the regimen. This increase in TRM may help explain why there was no observed OS benefit for patients receiving HSCT when disease-free survival was observed to be superior to standard chemotherapy.
In 2013, the Italian Group of Bone Marrow and Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (GITMO) published registry data on 415 patients with metastatic breast cancer who received HDC and autologous HSCT between 1990 and 2005.(18) More than 95% of the transplants performed used peripheral blood stem cells. Sixteen percent of patients received a tandem transplant. Estrogen-receptor (ER) status was known in 328 patients, 65% of whom were ER positive. HER2 expression data were insufficient for subset analysis. After a median follow-up of 27 months (range, 0-172 months), PFS at 5 and 10 years was 23% and14% and OS was 47% and 32%, respectively. The authors reported statistically significant survival benefit in patient subgroups including those with ER-positive tumors and those without visceral metastases; however, these are established positive prognostic factors compared with factors for patients with ER-negative tumors and visceral metastases, respectively. In addition, the authors did not report which patients received hormonal therapy, nor was it known if/which patients received targeted HER2 therapy, and it is unclear what impact on survival therapies other that HSCT may have had.
In 2013, GITMO published registry data on the use of adjuvant HDC with autologous HSCT in 1183 patients with high-risk primary breast cancer (≥3 involved lymph nodes), treated between 1990 and 2005.(19) Data on ER and HER2 status were available in 85% and 48% of patients, respectively. Most patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors received tamoxifen after HSCT. The median lymph node involvement at surgery was 15 (range, 4-63). More than 95% of the patients received peripheral bloodmobilized stem cells. After a median follow-up of 7.1 years, disease-free survival was 9.6 years, with 65% of patients free of disease at 5 years. Median OS was not reached, with 75% of patients alive at 5 years posttransplantation. Subgroup analysis showed significantly better OS in endocrine responsive tumors and in patients who received multiple transplant procedures. Transplant-related mortality was 0.8% and late cardiac and secondary tumor-related mortality were approximately 1% overall.
Tandem Autologous Transplantation
Kroger et al reported on the comparison of single versus tandem autologous HSCT in 187 patients with chemotherapy-sensitive metastatic breast cancer.(20) Only 52 of 85 patients completed the second HDC cycle in the tandem arm, mostly due to withdrawal of consent (most common reason), adverse effects, progressive disease, or death. The rate of CR was 33% in the single-dose arm versus 37% in the tandem
arm (p=0.48). Although there was a trend toward improved PFS after tandem HSCT, median OS tended to be greater after single versus tandem HDC (29 vs 23.5 months, respectively; p=0.4). The authors concluded that tandem HSCT cannot be recommended for patients with chemotherapy-sensitive metastatic breast cancer because of a trend for shorter OS and higher toxicity compared with single HSCT.
Schmid et al published results of 93 patients without prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer who were randomly assigned to standard-dose chemotherapy or double HDC with autologous HSCT.(21) The primary study objective was to compare CR rates. Objective response rates for the patients in the highdose group were 66.7% versus 64.4% for the standard group (p=0.82). There were no significant
differences between the 2 treatments in median time to progression, duration of response, or OS (OS, 26.9 months vs 23.4 months for the double high-dose arm vs the standard arm, respectively; p=0.60).
To date, allogeneic HSCT for breast cancer has mostly been used in patients who have failed multiple lines of conventional chemotherapy.(22) Ueno et al reported the results of allogeneic HSCT in 66 women with poor-risk metastatic breast cancer from 15 centers who underwent transplantation between 1992 and 2000.(23) Thirty-nine (59%) received myeloablative and 27 (41%) received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens. A total of 17 (26%) patients had received a prior autologous HSCT. Median follow-up time for survivors was 40 months (range, 3-64 months). TRM was lower in the RIC group (7% vs 29% at 100 days; p=0.03). PFS at 1 year was 23% in the myeloablative group versus 8% in the RIC group (p=0.09). OS rates after myeloablative conditioning versus the RIC group were 51% (95% CI, 36% to 67%) versus 26% (95% CI, 11% to 45%; p=0.04) at 1 year, 25% (95% CI, 13% to 40%) versus 15% (95% CI, 3% to 34%; p=0.33) at 2 years, and 19% (95% CI, 8% to 33%) versus 7% (95% CI, <1 to 25%; p=0.21) at 3 years, respectively.
Fleskens et al reported the results of a phase 2 study of 15 patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with HLA-matched reduced-intensity allogeneic HSCT.(24) Median patient age was 49.5 years (range, 39.7-60.8 years), and all patients had been extensively pretreated and had undergone at least 1 palliative chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease. TRM was 2 of 15 (13%). One-year PFS was 20%, and 1- and 2-year OS was 40% and 20%, respectively. The authors noted no objective tumor responses but concluded that the relatively long PFS suggests a graft-versus-tumor effect.
Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials
The National Cancer Institute clinical trials database (December 2014) identified 1 ongoing phase III trial for HSCT for breast cancer. The open-label, randomized study is investigating the effect of high-dose alkylating chemotherapy compared with standard chemotherapy as part of a multimodality treatment approach in patients with oligometastatic breast cancer harboring homologous recombination deficiency. The primary outcome measure is EFS. The estimated enrollment is 86 with an estimated study completion date of July 2019 (NCT01646034).
Summary of Evidence
Randomized trials of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) versus standard dose chemotherapy for patients with high-risk nonmetastatic or metastatic breast cancer have not shown a survival advantage with HSCT, and have shown greater treatment-related mortality and toxicity. Therefore, autologous HSCT is considered not medically necessary for this indication.
Nonrandomized studies using reduced-intensity or myeloablative allogeneic HSCT for metastatic breast cancer have suggested a possible graft-versus-tumor effect, but remains investigational for this indication.
Practice Guidelines and Position Statements
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (v3.2014) do not address the use of HSCT in the treatment of breast cancer.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations
Medicare National Coverage
There is no national coverage determination (NCD). In the absence of an NCD, coverage decisions are left to the discretion of local Medicare carriers.
- Vogl DT, Stadtmauer EA. Editorial: high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for metastatic breast cancer: a therapy whose time has passed. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2006;37(11):985-987.
- Stadtmauer EA, O'Neill A, Goldstein LJC-dccwh-dcpahs-ctfmbc, et al. Philadelphia Bone Marrow Transplant Group. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(15):1069-1076.
- Leonard RC, Lind M, Twelves C, et al. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy versus single-cycle, autograftsupported, high-dose, late-intensification chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(14):1076-1083.
- Rodenhuis S, Bontenbal M, Beex LV, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for high-risk breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(1):7-16.
- Tallman MS, Gray R, Robert NJ, et al. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in high-risk breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(1):17-26.
- Zander AR, Kroger N, Schmoor C, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support compared with standard-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: first results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(12):2273-2283.
- Hortobagyi GN. What is the role of high-dose chemotherapy in the era of targeted therapies? J Clin Oncol. Jun 15 2004;22(12):2263-2266. PMID 15111620
- Farquhar C, Marjoribanks J, Basser R, et al. High dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005(3):CD003142.
- Hanrahan EO, Broglio K, Frye D, et al. Randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support for high-risk primary breast carcinoma: follow-up at 12 years. Cancer. 2006;106(11):2327-2336.
- Coombes RC, Howell A, Emson M, et al. High dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation as adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer patients with four or more lymph nodes involved: long-term results of an international randomised trial. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(5):726-734.
- Farquhar CM, Marjoribanks J, Lethaby A, et al. High dose chemotherapy for poor prognosis breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2007;33(4):325-337.
- Crump M, Gluck S, Tu DRtoh-dcwap-bs-cscws-dciwwmbcNMA, et al. 16. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(1):37-43. PMID
- Biron P, Durand M, Roche H, et al. Pegase 03: a prospective randomized phase III trial of FEC with or without high-dose thiotepa, cyclophosphamide and autologous stem cell transplantation in first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;41(6):555-562.
- Zander AR, Schmoor C, Kroger N, et al. Randomized trial of high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support versus standard-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: overall survival after 6 years of follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(6):1082-1089.
- Nieto Y, Shpall EJ. High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary and metastatic breast cancer: is another look warranted? Curr Opin Oncol. Mar 2009;21(2):150-157. PMID 19532017
- Berry DA, Ueno NT, Johnson MM, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell support as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: overview of 15 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. Aug 20 2011;29(24):3214-3223. PMID 21768471
- Wang J, Zhang Q, Zhou R, et al. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as a first-line therapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33388. PMID 22428041
- Martino M, Ballestrero A, Zambelli A, et al. Long-term survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving intensified chemotherapy and stem cell rescue: data from the Italian registry. Bone Marrow Transplant. Mar 2013;48(3):414-418. PMID 22863724
- Pedrazzoli P, Martinelli G, Gianni AM, et al. Adjuvant High-Dose Chemotherapy With Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Support For1183 High-Risk Primary Breast Cancer: Results From The Italian National Registry. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. Dec 26 2013. PMID 24374214
- Kroger N, Frick M, Gluz O, et al. Randomized trial of single compared with tandem high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with chemotherapy-sensitive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(24):3919-3926.
- Schmid P, Schippinger W, Nitsch T, et al. Up-front tandem high-dose chemotherapy compared with standard chemotherapy with doxorubicin and paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer: Results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(3):432-440.
- Carella AM, Bregni M. Current role of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(10):1591-1593.
- Ueno NT, Rizzo JD, Demirer T, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for metastatic breast cancer. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;41(6):537-545.
- Fleskens AJ, Lalisang RI, Bos GM, et al. HLA-matched allo-SCT after reduced intensity conditioning with
fludarabine/CY in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(3):464-467.
|CPT||38204||Management of recipient hematopoietic cell donor search and cell acquisition|
|38205||Blood-derived hematopoietic progenitor cell harvesting for transplantation, per collection, allogeneic|
|38206||Blood-derived hematopoietic progenitor cell harvesting for transplantation, per collection, autologous|
|38208||Thawing of previously frozen harvest|
|38209||Washing of harvest|
|38210||Specific cell depletion with harvest, T cell depletion|
|38211||Tumor cell depletion|
|38212||Red blood cell removal|
|38214||Plasma (volume) depletion|
|38215||Cell concentration in plasma, mononuclear, or buffy coat layer|
|38220||Bone marrow, aspiration only|
|38221||Biopsy, needle or trocar|
|38240||Bone marrow or blood-derived peripheral stem-cell transplantation; allogeneic|
|38241||Bone marrow or blood-derived peripheral stem-cell transplantation; autologous|
|38242||Allogeneic donor lymphocyte infusions|
|ICD-9 Procedure||41.01||Autologous bone marrow transplant|
|41.02||Allogeneic bone marrow transplant with purging|
|41.03||Allogeneic bone marrow transplant without purging|
|41.04||Autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplant|
|41.05||Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant without purging|
|41.07||Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant with purging|
|41.08||Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with purging|
|41.09||Autologous bone marrow transplant with purging|
|41.91||Aspiration of bone marrow from donor for transplant|
|99.79||Other therapeutic apheresis (includes harvest of stem cells)|
|ICD-9 Diagnosis||174||Malignant neoplasm of the female breast|
|HCPCS||Q0083, Q0084, Q0085||Chemotherapy administration code range|
|J9000, J9001, J9010, J9015, J9017, J9020, J9025, J9027, J9031, J9035, J9040, J9041, J9045, J9050, J9055, J9060, J9062, J9065, J9070, J9080, J9090, J9091, J9092, J9093, J9094, J9095, J9096, J9097, J9098, J9100, J9110, J9120, J9130, J9140, J9150, J9151, J9160, J9165, J9170, J9175, J9178, J9181, J9182, J9185, J9190, J9200, J9201, J9202, J9206, J9208, J9209, J9211, J9212, J9213, J9214, J9215, J9216, J9217, J9218, J9219, J9225, J9226, J9230, J9245, J9250, J9260, J9261, J9263, J9264, J9265, J9266, J9268, J9270, J9280, J9290, J9291, J9293, J9300, J9303, J9305, J9310, J9320, J9340, J9350, J9355, J9357, J9360, J9370, J9375, J9380, J9395, J9600, J9999||Chemotherapy drug code range
|S2140||Cord blood harvesting for transplantation, allogeneic|
|S2142||Cord blood derived stem-cell transplantation, allogeneic|
|S2150||Bone marrow or blood-derived peripheral stem-cell harvesting and transplantation, allogeneic or autologous, including pheresis, high-dose chemotherapy, and the number of days of post-transplant care in the global definition (including drugs; hospitalization; medical surgical, diagnostic and emergency services)|
|ICD-10-CM (effective 10/1/15)||Not medically necessary or investigational for all relevant diagnoses|
|C50.011 -C50.929||Malignant neoplasm of nipple and breast, code range|
|C79.81||Secondary malignant neoplasm of breast|
|ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/1/15)||ICD-10-PCS codes are only used for inpatient services.|
|30230G0, 30233G0||Transfusion of autologous bone marrow into peripheral vein, code by approach|
|30230G1, 30233G1||Transfusion of nonautologous bone marrow into peripheral vein, code by approach|
|30240G0, 30243G0||Transfusion of autologous bone marrow into central vein, code by approach|
|30240G1, 30243G1||Transfusion of nonautologous bone marrow into central vein, code by approach|
|30250G0, 30253G0||Transfusion of autologous bone marrow into peripheral artery, code by approach|
|30250G1, 30253G1||Transfusion of nonautologous bone marrow into peripheral artery, code by approach|
|30260G0, 30263G0||Transfusion of autologous bone marrow into central artery, code by approach|
|30260G1, 30263G1||Transfusion of nonautologous bone marrow into central artery, code by approach|
|3E03005, 3E03305||Introduction of other antineoplastic into peripheral vein, code by approach|
|3E04005, 3E04305||Introduction of other antineoplastic into central vein, code by approach|
|3E05005, 3E05305||Introduction of other antineoplastic into peripheral artery, code by approach|
|3E06005, 3E06305||Introduction of other antineoplastic into central artery, code by approach|
|30230AZ, 30233AZ||Transfusion of stem cells, embryonic into peripheral vein, code by approach|
|30230Y0, 30233Y0||Transfusion of autologous stem cells, hematopoietic into peripheral vein, code by approach|
|30240AZ, 0243AZ||Transfusion of stem cells, embryonic into central vein, code by approach|
|30240Y0, 30243Y0||Transfusion of autologous stem cells, hematopoietic into central vein, code by approach|
|30250Y0, 30253Y0||Transfusion of autologous stem cells, hematopoietic into peripheral artery, code by approach|
|30260Y0, 30263Y0||Transfusion of autologous stem cells, hematopoietic into central artery, code by approach|
|30230Y1, 30233Y1||Transfusion of nonautologous stem cells, hematopoietic into peripheral vein, code by approach|
|30240Y1, 30243Y1||Transfusion of nonautologous stem cells, hematopoietic into central vein, code by approach|
|30250Y1, 30253Y1||Transfusion of nonautologous stem cells, hematopoietic into peripheral artery, code by approach|
|30260Y1, 30263Y1||Transfusion of nonautologous stem cells, hematopoietic into central artery, code by approach|
|079T00Z, 079T30Z, 079T40Z||
Drainage of bone marrow with drainage device, code by approach
|079T0ZZ, 079T4ZZ||Drainage of bone marrow, code by approach|
|07DQ0ZZ, 07DQ3ZZ||Extraction of sternum bone marrow, code by approach|
|07DR0ZZ, 07DR3ZZ||Extraction of iliac bone marrow, code by approach|
|07DS0ZZ, 07DS3ZZ||Extraction of vertebral bone marrow, code by approach|
|6A550ZT, 6A551ZT||Pheresis of cord blood stem cells, code for single or multiple|
|6A550ZV, 6A551ZV||Pheresis of hematopoietic stem cells, code for single or multiple|
|Type of Service||Therapy|
|Place of Service||Inpatient/Outpatient|
Breast Cancer, High-Dose Chemotherapy
High-Dose Chemotherapy; Breast Cancer
|12/01/99||Add to Therapy section||New policy. Policy represents revision of original policy No. 8.01.15 to focus entirely on breast cancer. Policy statement unchanged|
|12/18/02||Replace policy||Policy updated; references added, with discussion of randomized trials. Policy statements unchanged. Updated CPT codes|
|11/09/04||Replace policy||Policy updated; references added. Policy statement on tandem transplants was clarified; however, the policy statements were otherwise unchanged|
|12/14/05||Replace policy||Policy updated; references added. Policy statement was changed to investigational for all breast cancer indications|
|12/12/06||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature review; policy statement unchanged. Reference numbers 42-44 added|
|12/13/07||Replace Policy||Policy updated with literature review; policy statements unchanged.|
|12/11/08||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature review; Description, Rationale, and Reference sections revised extensively. Reference list consolidated; reference numbers 14, 16-17, and 19-23 added. Terminology in policy statements modified; however, intent of policy statements remains unchanged. “High-dose chemotherapy” removed from title.|
|12/03/09||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature review; references 13 to 16 added; reference 21 updated. Description extensively revised. Policy statement for single or tandem autologous transplant changed to “not medically necessary.” No other changes to policy statements|
|01/13/11||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature search; reference 21 added; reference 22 updated. No change to policy statements|
|1/12/12||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature search; no references added; reference 22 updated. No change to policy statements|
|1/10/13||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature search, references 17 and 18 added. No change to policy statements.|
|2/12/15||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature review through January 27, 2015. No references added. No change to policy statements.|