RETIRED Local Coverage Determination (LCD)

Prostate Rectal Spacers


Expand All | Collapse All
Proposed LCD
Proposed LCDs are works in progress that are available on the Medicare Coverage Database site for public review. Proposed LCDs are not necessarily a reflection of the current policies or practices of the contractor.

Document Note

Note History

Contractor Information

LCD Information

Document Information

Source LCD ID
Original ICD-9 LCD ID
Not Applicable
LCD Title
Prostate Rectal Spacers
Proposed LCD in Comment Period
Source Proposed LCD
Original Effective Date
For services performed on or after 07/02/2018
Revision Effective Date
For services performed on or after 08/01/2020
Revision Ending Date
Retirement Date
Notice Period Start Date
Notice Period End Date
AMA CPT / ADA CDT / AHA NUBC Copyright Statement

CPT codes, descriptions and other data only are copyright 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/HHSARS apply.

Fee schedules, relative value units, conversion factors and/or related components are not assigned by the AMA, are not part of CPT, and the AMA is not recommending their use. The AMA does not directly or indirectly practice medicine or dispense medical services. The AMA assumes no liability for data contained or not contained herein.

Current Dental Terminology © 2023 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2023, the American Hospital Association, Chicago, Illinois. Reproduced with permission. No portion of the American Hospital Association (AHA) copyrighted materials contained within this publication may be copied without the express written consent of the AHA. AHA copyrighted materials including the UB‐04 codes and descriptions may not be removed, copied, or utilized within any software, product, service, solution or derivative work without the written consent of the AHA. If an entity wishes to utilize any AHA materials, please contact the AHA at 312‐893‐6816.

Making copies or utilizing the content of the UB‐04 Manual, including the codes and/or descriptions, for internal purposes, resale and/or to be used in any product or publication; creating any modified or derivative work of the UB‐04 Manual and/or codes and descriptions; and/or making any commercial use of UB‐04 Manual or any portion thereof, including the codes and/or descriptions, is only authorized with an express license from the American Hospital Association. The American Hospital Association (the "AHA") has not reviewed, and is not responsible for, the completeness or accuracy of any information contained in this material, nor was the AHA or any of its affiliates, involved in the preparation of this material, or the analysis of information provided in the material. The views and/or positions presented in the material do not necessarily represent the views of the AHA. CMS and its products and services are not endorsed by the AHA or any of its affiliates.


Issue Description

Prostate rectal spacers are various materials or devices placed between the prostate and anterior wall of the rectum for use in men receiving radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The anterior wall of the rectum is considered a major dose-limiting factor in radiation therapy of prostate cancer. Physical separation is proposed to allow reduced toxicity and treatment intensification.

Reducing rectal radiation exposure during prostate cancer radiotherapy is desirable. The PEG spacer can be considered selectively when state-of-the-art localization techniques do not suffice to either improve oncologic cure rates or reduce side effects. Coverage criteria are meant to reflect a balanced nexus between EBRT candidacy, PEG spacer RCT inclusion/exclusion criteria, and national society guideline support.


Issue - Explanation of Change Between Proposed LCD and Final LCD

CMS National Coverage Policy

Language quoted from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) and coverage provisions in interpretive manuals is italicized throughout the policy. NCDs and coverage provisions in interpretive manuals are not subject to the LCD Review Process (42 CFR 405.860[b] and 42 CFR 426 [Subpart D]). In addition, an administrative law judge may not review an NCD. See Section 1869(f)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act. 

Unless otherwise specified, italicized text represents quotation from one or more of the following CMS sources: 

Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (SSA): 

Section 1862(a)(1)(A) excludes expenses incurred for items or services which are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. 

Section 1862(a)(1)(D) refers to limitations on items or devices that are investigational or experimental. 

Section 1833(e) prohibits Medicare payment for any claim which lacks the necessary information to process the claim.



Coverage Guidance

Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity

Polyethylene-glycol (PEG) hydrogel is covered ONCE in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer with BOTH the following: 

  1. Inclusion criteria including ALL of the following:
    1. Low* or Favorable Intermediate Prostate Cancer Risk Group (1-5) (AUA or NCCN criteria (6,7))
    2. Dose escalated (≥ 76 Gy) conventional fractionation (1.8-2 Gy fractions) or moderate hypofractionation (HFX) (2.4-3.4 Gy fractions) IG-IMRT planned (7,8,9,25-27)
    3. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤ 1 (4)
    4. Modern localization techniques insufficient to improve oncologic cure rates and/or reduce side effects due to AT LEAST ONE of the following (7):
      1. Anatomic geometry precluding ideal rectal constraints 
        • Conventional fractionation (V70 <10%, V65 <20%, V40 <40%) (10)
        • Moderate HPX (dose constraints not yet standardized; employ those used in the supporting phase III trials) (25)
      2. Medication usage (e.g., anticoagulants) (8,11,12)
      3. Comorbid conditions (e.g., increased age, Hx MI or CHF) (11)
  2. No Exclusion criteria including ALL of the following:
    1. Less than 5 year life-expectancy and asymptomatic (7)
    2. Prior prostate cancer treatment (surgery or RT) (1,3,4,8)
    3. Active bleeding disorder or clinically significant coagulopathy (8)
    4. Active inflammatory or infectious disease in the perineum or injection area (e.g., prostatitis, anorectal IBD) (1,3,8)
    5. Prostate volume > 80 cc (1,3,4)

*Life expectancy ≥ 20 y (very low risk); ≥ 10 y (low risk) (7)

Prostate rectal spacers are various materials or devices placed between the prostate and anterior wall of the rectum for use in men receiving radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The anterior wall of the rectum is considered a major dose-limiting factor in radiation therapy of prostate cancer. Physical separation is proposed to allow reduced toxicity and treatment intensification.



Summary of Evidence

Song et al. (2013) (1) conducted a prospective pilot clinical trial with 52 patients at four institutions. Spacer hydrogel was injected after CT and MRI planning scans with repeat scans after the injection. IMRT plans were composed using each set of CT and MRI scans. A prostate rectal separation of >7.5 mm was achieved in 95.8% of the patients. A decreased rectal V70 >25% occurred in 95.7%. No significant differences were found in prostate, planning treatment volume (PTV), rectal, and bladder volumes. Four of the 52 patients were not successfully injected and a separate publication was planned detailing these occurrences. Acute toxicity was not addressed in this report. The author concluded statistically significant rectal dose reductions across the entire dose range occurred in >90% of the patients.

Uhl et al. (2014) (3) reported on the 12 month toxicity of 52 patients who received IMRT (78 Gy) for localized prostate cancer along with a prostate rectal PEG spacer. Injection was not successful in four and in the rectal wall in one patient, leaving 47 patients in the study. In addition to toxicity data at 3, 6, and 12 months, proctoscopy was performed at 12 months. Grade 1 acute rectal toxicity was noted in 19 (39.6%) and grade 2 in 6 (12.5%). No patients had grade 3 or 4 acute toxicity. Late grade 1 toxicity was experienced by 2 (4.3%), but none had grades 2, 3, or 4 toxicity. Grades 1, 2, and 3 genitourinary (GU) toxicity occurred in 20 (41.7%), 17 (35.4%), and 1 (2.1%), respectively. Forty-five of the 47 patients had proctoscopy at 12 months after IMRT treatment. Using the Vienna Rectoscopy Scale (VRS), 32 (71%) had a score of zero. Grade 2 congested mucosa was noted in 1 (3%) and telangiectasias were found in 28%: grade 1 - 13%, grade 2 – 13%, and grade 3 – 2%. Ulceration, stricture, or necrosis were not found.

Hamstra et al. (2017) (4) studied the extended three year follow-up data of the above subjects. Patient participation was voluntary and included 63% of both spacer (n=94) and control (n=46) patients. A comparison of the group volunteer members was not presented, except that there was no difference between groups regarding participation. A median follow-up of 37 months (range 26-46) occurred for the controls and 37.1 (range 32-47) months for the spacer subjects.

Data showed the spacer group had a smaller volume of rectal radiation for all volumes from V50 to V80 (p<.0001). Relative reductions were 54% for V50, 79% for V70, and 96% for V80. Grade >1 rectal toxicity at three years was decreased by 75% in the spacer patients (spacer 2%, 95% CI 1%- 6%) and (control 9%, 95% CI 4% - 20%), p<.03. No grade >2 rectal toxicity was seen in the spacer patients with 6% in the control group and one case of grade 3. It was noted that the toxicity in the control group was less than usually reported and no explanation was available. There were no differences in grades 1 or 2 urinary toxicities between the groups at three years with the exception of urinary incontinence in 15% of the controls and 4% in the spacer group (p = .046).

Susil et al. (2010) (13) injected 20 cadavers with hydrogel using a transperineal approach achieving an average of 12.5 mm of separation.  Average rectal volume receiving 70 Gy decreased from 19.9% to 4.5%.  The authors discussed the potential advantages and possible risks as well as various substances that could be used.

Mariados et al. (2015) (14) reported on a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 222 patients with stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were performed for treatment planning, followed by placement of fiducial markers. Patients were then randomized 2:1 to receive a polyethylene glycol (PEG) prostate rectal absorbable spacer (SpaceOAR® system) injection or no injection. The planning CTs and MRIs were repeated prior to image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions). A primary endpoint of a >25% reduction in the rectal volume (rV70) was achieved in 97.3% of the spacer patients. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing grade 1 or greater rectal or procedural adverse events (AEs) in the first six months. The treatment group had a reduction in pain during RT (spacer 2.7% and control 11.8%, p = 0.022) but overall there were no statistically significant differences in acute AEs between the treatment (34.2%) and control (31.5%) groups. There were also no differences between groups in urinary toxicity. Late rectal toxicity (3 – 15 months) was seen in 2.0% of the spacer patients and 7.0% of the controls which was statistically significant (p = 0.044). No differences were found in bowel and urinary quality-of-life (QOL) at three months and both groups had 5- and 10-point bowel QOL declines at 6, 12, and 15 months. There was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.003) in urinary QOL at six months between groups favoring the treatment group, but there was no difference at 15 months.

Pieczonka et al. (2016) (15) also reported on the same group immediately above. Insertion of the spacer was described as “very easy” in 98.7% and successful in 99.3%. It was noted that the mean perirectal space was 12.6 mm after implant and 10.9 mm at 12.4 weeks, with absorption at 12 months.

The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Bowel Composite (EPIC) (16) quality of life (QOL) and minimally important difference (MID) (17) tools were used to assess patient opinions of treatment. Bowel QOL declined in both groups in the first three months with return to baseline at six months. At three years the spacer group was near or greater than baseline, but the control group had decreased (p=.002). Differences were at the 5 point level of MID but not at the 10 point level. A correlation between an increasing rectal V50 to V80 and a decline in bowel QOL was found. Urinary QOL also declined in both groups in the first three months with return to baseline at six months. At three years, there was a statistical difference between the two groups favoring the spacer group, but it did not meet the MID level. However, it was also stated that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups regarding urinary frequency favoring the spacer arm (5%) versus the controls (18%) p = .05. No differences were found in the sexual QOL or vitality/hormonal QOL.

Hatiboglu et al. (2012) (18) reported on 29 of the patients in the study immediately above. The method of selecting the 29 out of 52 patients is not described, and the study is described as prospective, single-arm, open-label performed at four institutions. Safety evaluation and performance of the spacer were the main objectives. Scans (CT and MRI) were performed prior to and after spacer injection and after IMRT at 3 and 6 months. An independent reviewer measured the distance between the prostate and rectum. “Functional” (7.5 mm space after spacer injection) and “clinical success” (> 25% reduction in rectal V70) occurred in 28/29 (96.6%) and 26/27 (96.3%) of patients. Two patients were excluded due to technical difficulties loading their data for review.

Whalley et al. (2016) (19) studied 30 patients with T1-T3 prostate cancer for whom dose-escalated radiation therapy was considered appropriate and who were enrolled in a Phase I/II trial. A contemporary control group of 110 patients receiving the same dose was identified for comparison. Primary endpoints were comparison of the rectal volume receiving 30 – 82 Gy and post-operative toxicity. Secondary endpoints were acute and late toxicity. Hydrogel (spacer) was successfully injected into 29 patients with injection into the rectal lumen in one. Mean difference of rectal- prostate separation was 10.5 mm. Toxicity related to the injection occurred in five but resolved within a week. Acute radiation gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity occurred in 13 (43%), which was primarily increased stool frequency.  It was noted that stool softeners had been prescribed. Two patients had grade 1 rectal bleeding. There was no >2 stage acute gastrointestinal toxicity. Late grade 1 GI toxicity of increased stool frequency occurred in five (16.6%) spacer patients. One patient received laser coagulation at 13 months and at 18 months the bleeding had not recurred.  In the control group, acute grade 1 toxicity occurred in 56 (50.6%) and grade 2 in five (4.5%).  Late grade 1 GI toxicity in the control patients was noted in 46 (41.8%) occurring at a median of 11.5 months after radiation with a range of 6 – 43 months.

Symptoms were increased stool frequency and rectal bleeding not requiring intervention. Late grade 2 toxicity was seen in four (3.6%) patients and occurred at a median of 20 months. There was no grade 3 toxicity in either group. Late grade 1 toxicity was reduced in the spacer group compared to the control (p = 0.04) but there was no difference in late grade 2 toxicity. Median follow-up in this study was greater than two years. The authors noted that GI toxicity occurs at a median of 17 months with peaks at 1.5 and 4.5 years [Zelefsky et al. (2008) (20) and Odrazka et al. (2010) (21)].

Habl et al. (2016) (22) stopped using the spacer gel due to the development of rectal fistulae in two patients and the fistulae were presumed to be due to the gradual accumulation of gel within the anterior rectal wall.  Correspondence from Fagundes et al. (2016) (23) has questioned the fistulae being due to the use of the spacer. 

The ECRI Institute which performs technology assessments recently evaluated the SpaceOAR® System. (24) A literature search of articles published between January 1, 2000 and May 17, 2017 was performed.  The full text of seven articles and seven abstracts were reviewed.  It was concluded from one RCT and three non-RCTs that the hydrogel was well tolerated; worked as intended to reduce rectal irradiation and long term but not acute toxicity, and improved bowel quality of life.  Acute rectal toxicity reduction was not found. The report stated studies with longer term follow-up of greater than five years comparing different spacers are needed.

Hypofractionation (HFX) EBRT

Moderate HPX has become an accepted alternative to conventionally-fractioned EBRT, despite lack of standardized dose constraints and follow-up beyond 5 years (7, 25-27). However, guideline support for ultra-HFX (sometimes referred to as stereotactic body radiation therapy or SBRT) as a treatment option, even in very low- to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, is mixed. NCCN guidelines include ultra-HPX treatment options (7), ASTRO/ASCO/AUA guidelines (25) grade their ultra-HFX recommendation “conditional” (“remaining uncertainty in the balance between benefit and risk”), and the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends restricting ultra-HFX to prospective clinical trials (26).

Studies of HFX using the PEG spacer are lacking. A small, single institution, retrospective chart review of 50 men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with ultra-HFX after PEG placement claimed to show that “lower rates of acute rectal toxicity were observed compared with previous, similarly-fractionated SBRT reports that were performed without spacer placement” (28).

NCCN Guidelines recommend selective use of the PEG spacer (standard EBRT or HFX) when modern EBRT localization techniques are “insufficient to improve oncologic cure rates and/or reduce side effects due to anatomic geometry or other patient related factors, such as medication usage and/or comorbid conditions” (7). ASTRO/ASCO/AUA HPX specific guidelines mention prostate-rectal spacers as one of several techniques “to facilitate the meeting of rectal and bladder dose-volume constraints” (25).


Analysis of Evidence (Rationale for Determination)

In summary, some of the literature endorses that the injection of the PEG spacer is usually safe and without untoward events once the physician becomes familiar with the procedure. Other references not cited here have described materials used to increase the distance between the prostate and rectum during radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Hyaluronic acid, human collagen, interstitial balloons, as well as synthetic polyethylene glycols have been used. 

National PEG spacer commercial coverage varies from none as investigational (29,30), to selective (31), to relatively unrestricted (32-35). Other MACs have not weighed in with either specific positive or negative coverage.

Reducing rectal radiation exposure during prostate cancer radiotherapy is desirable. The PEG spacer can be considered selectively when state-of-the-art localization techniques do not suffice to either improve oncologic cure rates or reduce side effects. Coverage criteria are meant to reflect a balanced nexus between EBRT candidacy, PEG spacer RCT inclusion/exclusion criteria, and national society guideline support.


Proposed Process Information

Synopsis of Changes
Changes Fields Changed
Associated Information
Sources of Information
Open Meetings
Meeting Date Meeting States Meeting Information
Contractor Advisory Committee (CAC) Meetings
Meeting Date Meeting States Meeting Information
MAC Meeting Information URLs
Proposed LCD Posting Date
Comment Period Start Date
Comment Period End Date
Reason for Proposed LCD
Requestor Information
This request was MAC initiated.
Requestor Name Requestor Letter
View Letter
Contact for Comments on Proposed LCD

Coding Information

Bill Type Codes

Code Description

Revenue Codes

Code Description


Group 1

Group 1 Paragraph


Group 1 Codes



ICD-10-CM Codes that Support Medical Necessity

Group 1

Group 1 Paragraph:


Group 1 Codes:



ICD-10-CM Codes that DO NOT Support Medical Necessity

Group 1

Group 1 Paragraph:


Group 1 Codes:



Additional ICD-10 Information

General Information

Associated Information


Sources of Information


  1. Song DY, Herfarth KK, Uhl M, et al. A multi-institutional clinical trial of rectal dose reduction via injected polyethylene-glycol hydrogel during intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: analysis of dosimetric outcomes. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2013;87(1):81-87.
  2. Pinkawa M, Piroth MD, Holy R, et al. Spacer stability and prostate position variability during radiotherapy for prostate cancer applying a hydrogel to protect the rectal wall. Radiother Oncol. 2013;106(2):220-224.
  3. Uhl M, Herfarth K, Eble MJ, et al. Absorbable hydrogel spacer use in men undergoing prostate cancer radiotherapy: 12 month toxicity and proctoscopy results of a prospective multicenter phase II trial. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:96.
  4. Hamstra DA, Mariados N, Sylvester J, et al. Continued Benefit to Rectal Separation for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Final Results of a Phase III Trial. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2017;97(5):976-985.
  5. Padmanabhan R, Pinkawa M, Song DY. Hydrogel spacers in prostate radiotherapy: a promising approach to decrease rectal toxicity. Future Oncol. 2017;13(29):2697-2708.
  6. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. 2017;
  7. NCCN Guidelines- Prostate Cancer Version 4.2019.
  8. Muller AC, Mischinger J, Klotz T, et al. Interdisciplinary consensus statement on indication and application of a hydrogel spacer for prostate radiotherapy based on experience in more than 250 patients. Radiol Oncol. 2016;50(3):329-336.
  9. Mok G, Benz E, Vallee JP, Miralbell R, Zilli T. Optimization of radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer with prostate-rectum spacers: a systematic review. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2014;90(2):278-288.
  10. Chennupati SK, Pelizzari CA, Kunnavakkam R, Liauw SL. Late toxicity and quality of life after definitive treatment of prostate cancer: redefining optimal rectal sparing constraints for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Cancer Med. 2014;3(4):954-961.
  11. Hamstra DA, Stenmark MH, Ritter T, et al. Age and comorbid illness are associated with late rectal toxicity following dose-escalated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2013;85(5):1246-1253.
  12. Choe KS, Jani AB, Liauw SL. External beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients on anticoagulation therapy: how significant is the bleeding toxicity? International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2010;76(3):755-760.
  13. Susil RC, McNutt TR, DeWeese TL, Song D. Effects of prostate-rectum separation on rectal dose from external beam radiotherapy. In J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(4):1251-1258. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1679/PMID 19939577.
  14. Mariados N, Sylvester J, Shah D, et al. Hydrogel spacer prospective multicenter randomized controlled pivotal trial: dosimetric and clinical effects of perirectal spacer application in men undergoing prostate image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;92(5):971-977.
  15. Pieczonka CM, Mariados N, Sylvester J, et al. Hydrogel spacer application technique, patient tolerance and impact on prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy: results from a prospective, multicenter pivotal randomized controlled trial. Urology Practice. 2016;3(2):141-146.
  16. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, et al. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000 Dec 20;56:899-905.
  17. Skolarus TA, Dunn RL, Sandra MG, et al. Minimally important difference for the expanded prostate cancer index composite short form. Urology. 2015;85(1):101-105.
  18. Hatiboglu G, Pinkawa M, Vallèe JP, Hadaschik B, Hohenfellner M.  Application technique: placement of a prostate-rectum spacer in men undergoing prostate radiation therapy.  BJU International. 2012;110:E647-E652. doi:1111/j.1454-410X.2012.11373.x.
  19. Whalley D, Hruby G, Alfieri F, Kneebone A, Eade T. SpaceOAR Hydrogel in dose-escalated prostate cancer radiotherapy: rectal dosimetryand late toxicity. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016 (Oct 28(10): e148-54. Foi:10.1016/j.clon.216.05.005. Epub 2016 Jun11.
  20. Zelefsky, MJ, Devin BA, Hunt M, et al. Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Into J Radiation Oncology Boil Phys. 2008 Mar 15; 70(4):1124-1129.
  21. Odraska K, Dolezel M, Vanasek J, et al.  Time course of late rectal toxicity after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2010;13:138-143.
  22. Habl G, Uhl M, Katayama S, et al. Acute toxicity and quality of life in patients with prostate cancer treated with protons or carbon ions in a prospective randomized phase II study – the IPI trial. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2016;95(1):435-443.
  23. Fagundes M. In regard to Habl et al. Int J Radiat Oncology. 2016;96(1):241-242.
  24. Health Technology Assessment Information Service  SpaceOAR® System (Augmenix, Inc.) Hydrogel Spacer for Reducing Exposure during Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. ECRI Institute. May 2017, pages 1-13.
  25. Morgan SC, Hoffman K, Loblaw DA, et al. Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2018:JCO1801097.
  26. EAU Guidelines: Prostate Cancer, Chapter 6: Treatment. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona 2019. 2019; Accessed 7/6/19.
  27. UpToDate: External beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. 2018; UpToDate
  28. Hwang ME, Mayeda M, Liz M, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy with periprostatic hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: toxicity profile and early oncologic outcomes. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14(1):136.
  29. BCBSMA: Hydrogel Spacer use During Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer #743.  Accessed 10/2/19.
  30. Anthem: Perirectal Spacers for Use During Prostate Radiotherapy #00143 Accessed 10/2/19.
  31. UnitedHealthcare: Prostate Rectal Spacers Guideline # MPG375.01.  Accessed 10/2/19.
  32. Aetna: Transperineal Placement of Biodegradeable Material (SpaceOAR) for Prostate Cancer Policy number: 0926. Accessed 10/2/19.
  33. Humana: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) # HCS-0322-019. Accessed 10/2/19.
  34. Humana: Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) (SBRT) # HCS-0395-018. Accessed 10/2/19.
  35. CIigna: Omnibus Codes #0504. Accessed 10/2/19.


Revision History Information

Revision History Date Revision History Number Revision History Explanation Reasons for Change
05/01/2024 R6

This policy is retired and is no longer in effect for services rendered on or after May 1, 2024.

  • LCD Being Retired
08/01/2020 R5

Hyperlinks in Bibliography section have been deactivated.

  • Typographical Error
08/01/2020 R4

Removed outdated hyperlinks from Bibliography numbers 29, 31, 35 and corrected hyperlink number 6.

  • Typographical Error
08/01/2020 R3

Added coverage associated with moderate hypofractionated RTX, effective for services rendered on or after August 1, 2020.

  • Provider Education/Guidance
10/03/2019 R2

Consistent with Change Request 10901, all coding information, National coverage provisions, and Associated Information (Documentation Requirements, Utilization Guidelines) have been removed from the LCD and placed in the related Billing and Coding Article, A56539. There has been no change in coverage with this LCD revision.

  • Revisions Due To Code Removal
10/15/2018 R1

Based on the receipt of several Reconsideration Requests and the August 15, 2018 revision of NCCN guidelines, Indications and Limitations of Coverage have been updated, and references have been added to the Bibliography.

  • Provider Education/Guidance
  • Reconsideration Request

Associated Documents

Related National Coverage Documents
Public Versions
Updated On Effective Dates Status
05/01/2024 08/01/2020 - 05/01/2024 Retired You are here
08/02/2022 08/01/2020 - N/A Superseded View
03/01/2022 08/01/2020 - N/A Superseded View
06/05/2020 08/01/2020 - N/A Superseded View
Some older versions have been archived. Please visit the MCD Archive Site to retrieve them.



Read the LCD Disclaimer