Medical physics · 2026
Expansion and clinical validation of Markov model-based quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) simulations for head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy patients.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tattenberg Sebastian, Allignet Benoit, Ding Xuanfeng, Hoehr Cornelia, Chen Peter, Beuf Olivier
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy treatment plan comparisons often utilize structure doses, tumor control probabilities (TCPs), and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs), but such metrics do not reflect the duration for which a patient suffers from a developed toxicity. Markov models allowing for the simulation of the patient's entire lifetime post-treatment and the determination of quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) have been developed but generally disregard important considerations such as additional treatments received and second primary malignancies (SPMs). Clinical validation also largely remains outstanding.
PURPOSE: This study aims to expand and clinically validate a Markov model focusing on head-and-neck cancer patients.
METHODS: A Markov model considering tumor control, healthy tissue toxicities, distant metastases, radiation-associated secondary cancer, and death from various causes was expanded to further include additional treatments received, SPMs, and the patient's smoking history. For each of 148 head-and-neck cancer patients, 437,000 simulations of the patient's entire lifetime post-treatment were performed and compared to the patient's clinically-documented outcomes (wherever available).
RESULTS: 94.4% of simulations exhibited locoregional control, compared to 89.9% of patients in clinical reality. Simulated death with locoregional failure was 4.9%, compared to 5.4% in real life. Patients developed and died with distant metastases in 8.0% of simulations, while 10.8% of patients developed distant metastases in real life and 5.7% of patients passed away with distant disease. The simulated second primary cancer rate was 13.5%. Patients exhibited at least one healthy tissue toxicity in 43.8% of simulations, and simulated life expectancy and QALE were 76.5 ± 11.6 years and 74.3 ± 11.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between simulation results and available clinically-documented outcomes was generally excellent, enabling the evaluation of prospective clinical outcomes and comparisons between different patient populations along with variable treatment combinations.
PURPOSE: This study aims to expand and clinically validate a Markov model focusing on head-and-neck cancer patients.
METHODS: A Markov model considering tumor control, healthy tissue toxicities, distant metastases, radiation-associated secondary cancer, and death from various causes was expanded to further include additional treatments received, SPMs, and the patient's smoking history. For each of 148 head-and-neck cancer patients, 437,000 simulations of the patient's entire lifetime post-treatment were performed and compared to the patient's clinically-documented outcomes (wherever available).
RESULTS: 94.4% of simulations exhibited locoregional control, compared to 89.9% of patients in clinical reality. Simulated death with locoregional failure was 4.9%, compared to 5.4% in real life. Patients developed and died with distant metastases in 8.0% of simulations, while 10.8% of patients developed distant metastases in real life and 5.7% of patients passed away with distant disease. The simulated second primary cancer rate was 13.5%. Patients exhibited at least one healthy tissue toxicity in 43.8% of simulations, and simulated life expectancy and QALE were 76.5 ± 11.6 years and 74.3 ± 11.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between simulation results and available clinically-documented outcomes was generally excellent, enabling the evaluation of prospective clinical outcomes and comparisons between different patient populations along with variable treatment combinations.