Search

Introduction: Proton radiotherapy (PT) is a promising but more expensive strategy than photon radiotherapy (XRT) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PT is probably not cost-effective for all patients. Therefore, patients can be selected using normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models with predefined criteria. This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for patients with stage III NSCLC: 1. photon radiotherapy for all patients (XRT All ); 2. PT for all patients (PT All ); 3. PT for selected patients (PT Individualized )., Methods: A decision-analytical model was constructed to estimate and compare costs and QALYs of all strategies. Three radiation-related toxicities were included: dyspnea, dysphagia and cardiotoxicity. Costs and QALY's were incorporated for grade 2 and ≥ 3 toxicities separately. Incremental Cost-Effectiven Ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared to a threshold value of €80,000. Additionally, scenario, sensitivity and value of information analyses were performed., Results: PT All yielded most QALYs, but was also most expensive. XRT All was the least effective and least expensive strategy, and the most cost-effective strategy. For thresholds higher than €163,467 per QALY gained, PT Individualized was cost-effective. When assuming equal minutes per fraction (15 minutes) for PT and XRT, PT Individualized was considered the most cost-effective strategy (ICER: €76,299)., Conclusion: Currently, PT is not cost-effective for all patients, nor for patient selected on the current NTCP models used in the Dutch indication protocol. However, with improved clinical experience, personnel and treatment costs of PT can decrease over time, which potentially leads to PT Individualized , with optimal patient selection, will becoming a cost-effective strategy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a new strategy for using artificial intelligence (AI) as supporting reader for the detection of breast cancer in mammography-based double reading screening practice., Methods: Large-scale multi-site, multi-vendor data were used to retrospectively evaluate a new paradigm of AI-supported reading. Here, the AI served as the second reader only if it agrees with the recall/no-recall decision of the first human reader. Otherwise, a second human reader made an assessment followed by the standard clinical workflow. The data included 280 594 cases from 180 542 female participants screened for breast cancer at seven screening sites in two countries and using equipment from four hardware vendors. The statistical analysis included non-inferiority and superiority testing of cancer screening performance and evaluation of the reduction in workload, measured as arbitration rate and number of cases requiring second human reading., Results: Artificial intelligence as a supporting reader was found to be superior or noninferior on all screening metrics compared with human double reading while reducing the number of cases requiring second human reading by up to 87% (245 395/280 594). Compared with AI as an independent reader, the number of cases referred to arbitration was reduced from 13% (35 199/280 594) to 2% (5056/280 594)., Conclusion: The simulation indicates that the proposed workflow retains screening performance of human double reading while substantially reducing the workload. Further research should study the impact on the second human reader because they would only assess cases in which the AI prediction and first human reader disagree., (© The Authors 2023.)

(1) Background: The main aim was to develop a prototype application that would serve as an open-source repository for a curated subset of predictive and prognostic models regarding oncology, and provide a user-friendly interface for the included models to allow online calculation. The focus of the application is on providing physicians and health professionals with patient-specific information regarding treatment plans, survival rates, and side effects for different expected treatments. (2) Methods: The primarily used models were the ones developed by our research group in the past. This selection was completed by a number of models, addressing the same cancer types but focusing on other outcomes that were selected based on a literature search in PubMed and Medline databases. All selected models were publicly available and had been validated TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of studies on prediction models for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) type 3 or 2b. (3) Results: The open source repository currently incorporates 18 models from different research groups, evaluated on datasets from different countries. Model types included logistic regression, Cox regression, and recursive partition analysis (decision trees). (4) Conclusions: An application was developed to enable physicians to complement their clinical judgment with user-friendly patient-specific predictions using models that have received internal/external validation. Additionally, this platform enables researchers to display their work, enhancing the use and exposure of their models.

Background: Lung cancer treatment decisions are typically made among clinical experts in a multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) based on clinical data and guidelines. The rise of artificial intelligence and cultural shifts towards patient autonomy are changing the nature of clinical decision-making towards personalized treatments. This can be supported by clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that generate personalized treatment information as a basis for shared decision-making (SDM). Little is known about lung cancer patients' treatment decisions and the potential for SDM supported by CDSSs. The aim of this study is to understand to what extent SDM is done in current practice and what clinicians need to improve it., Objective: To explore (1) the extent to which patient preferences are taken into consideration in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment decisions; (2) clinician perspectives on using CDSSs to support SDM., Design: Mixed methods study consisting of a retrospective cohort study on patient deviation from MTB advice and reasons for deviation, qualitative interviews with lung cancer specialists and observations of MTB discussions and patient consultations., Setting and Participants: NSCLC patients (N = 257) treated at a single radiotherapy clinic and nine lung cancer specialists from six Dutch clinics., Results: We found a 10.9% (n = 28) deviation rate from MTB advice; 50% (n = 14) were due to patient preference, of which 85.7% (n = 12) chose a less intensive treatment than MTB advice. Current MTB recommendations are based on clinician experience, guidelines and patients' performance status. Most specialists (n = 7) were receptive towards CDSSs but cited barriers, such as lack of trust, lack of validation studies and time. CDSSs were considered valuable during MTB discussions rather than in consultations., Conclusion: Lung cancer decisions are heavily influenced by clinical guidelines and experience, yet many patients prefer less intensive treatments. CDSSs can support SDM by presenting the harms and benefits of different treatment options rather than giving single treatment advice. External validation of CDSSs should be prioritized., Patient or Public Contribution: This study did not involve patients or the public explicitly; however, the study design was informed by prior interviews with volunteers of a cancer patient advocacy group. The study objectives and data collection were supported by Dutch health care insurer CZ for a project titled 'My Best Treatment' that improves patient-centeredness and the lung cancer patient pathway in the Netherlands., (© 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The aim of this study is to build a decision support system (DSS) to select radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We used an individual state-transition model based on predictive models for estimating tumor control and toxicity probabilities. We performed analyses on a synthetically generated dataset of 1000 patients with realistic clinical parameters, externally validated by comparison to randomized clinical trials, and set up an in silico clinical trial for elderly patients. We assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the DSS for treatment selection by comparing it to randomized treatment allotment. Using the DSS, 47.8% of synthetic patients were selected for RP and 52.2% for EBRT. During validation, differences with the simulations of late toxicity and biochemical failure never exceeded 2%. The in silico trial showed that for elderly patients, toxicity has more influence on the decision than TCP, and the predicted QoL depends on the initial erectile function. The DSS is estimated to result in cost savings (EUR 323 (95% CI: EUR 213-433)) and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.11 years, 95% CI: 0.00-0.22) than randomized treatment selection.

Objective: To establish whether one can build a mortality prediction model for COVID-19 patients based solely on demographics and comorbidity data that outperforms age alone. Such a model could be a precursor to implementing smart lockdowns and vaccine distribution strategies., Methods: The training cohort comprised 2337 COVID-19 inpatients from nine hospitals in The Netherlands. The clinical outcome was death within 21 days of being discharged. The features were derived from electronic health records collected during admission. Three feature selection methods were used: LASSO, univariate using a novel metric, and pairwise (age being half of each pair). 478 patients from Belgium were used to test the model. All modeling attempts were compared against an age-only model., Results: In the training cohort, the mortality group's median age was 77 years (interquartile range = 70-83), higher than the non-mortality group (median = 65, IQR = 55-75). The incidence of former/active smokers, male gender, hypertension, diabetes, dementia, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic cardiac disease, chronic neurological disease, and chronic kidney disease was higher in the mortality group. All stated differences were statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. LASSO selected eight features, novel univariate chose five, and pairwise chose none. No model was able to surpass an age-only model in the external validation set, where age had an AUC of 0.85 and a balanced accuracy of 0.77., Conclusion: When applied to an external validation set, we found that an age-only mortality model outperformed all modeling attempts (curated on www.covid19risk.ai) using three feature selection methods on 22 demographic and comorbid features., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Searching through the COVID-19 research literature to gain actionable clinical insight is a formidable task, even for experts. The usefulness of this corpus in terms of improving patient care is tied to the ability to see the big picture that emerges when the studies are seen in conjunction rather than in isolation. When the answer to a search query requires linking together multiple pieces of information across documents, simple keyword searches are insufficient. To answer such complex information needs, an innovative artificial intelligence (AI) technology named a knowledge graph (KG) could prove to be effective., Methods: We conducted an exploratory literature review of KG applications in the context of COVID-19. The search term used was "covid-19 knowledge graph". In addition to PubMed, the first five pages of search results for Google Scholar and Google were considered for inclusion. Google Scholar was used to include non-peer-reviewed or non-indexed articles such as pre-prints and conference proceedings. Google was used to identify companies or consortiums active in this domain that have not published any literature, peer-reviewed or otherwise., Results: Our search yielded 34 results on PubMed and 50 results each on Google and Google Scholar. We found KGs being used for facilitating literature search, drug repurposing, clinical trial mapping, and risk factor analysis., Conclusions: Our synopses of these works make a compelling case for the utility of this nascent field of research.

There is now strong clinical and preclinical evidence that lymphocytes, for example, CD8 + T cells, are key effectors of immunotherapy and that irradiation of large blood vessels, the heart, and lymphoid organs (including nodes, spleen, bones containing bone marrow, and thymus in children) causes transient or persistent lymphopenia. Furthermore, there is extensive clinical evidence, across multiple cancer sites and treatment modalities, that lymphopenia correlates strongly with decreased overall survival. At the moment, we lack quantitative evidence to establish the relationship between dose-volume and dose-rate to critical normal structures and lymphopenia. Therefore, we propose that data should be systematically recorded to characterise a possible quantitative relationship. This might enable us to improve the efficacy of radiotherapy and develop strategies to predict and prevent treatment-related lymphopenia. In anticipation of more quantitative data, we recommend the application of the principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable to lymphocyte-rich regions for radiotherapy treatment planning to reduce the radiation doses to these structures, thus moving toward "Lymphocyte-Sparing Radiotherapy.", (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Prognostic models based on individual patient characteristics can improve treatment decisions and outcome in the future. In many (radiomic) studies, small size and heterogeneity of datasets is a challenge that often limits performance and potential clinical applicability of these models. The current study is example of a retrospective multi-centric study with challenges and caveats. To highlight common issues and emphasize potential pitfalls, we aimed for an extensive analysis of these multi-center pre-treatment datasets, with an additional 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan acquired during treatment., Methods: The dataset consisted of 138 stage II-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from four different cohorts acquired from three different institutes. The differences between the cohorts were compared in terms of clinical characteristics and using the so-called 'cohort differences model' approach. Moreover, the potential prognostic performances for overall survival of radiomic features extracted from CT or FDG-PET, or relative or absolute differences between the scans at the two time points, were assessed using the LASSO regression method. Furthermore, the performances of five different classifiers were evaluated for all image sets., Results: The individual cohorts substantially differed in terms of patient characteristics. Moreover, the cohort differences model indicated statistically significant differences between the cohorts. Neither LASSO nor any of the tested classifiers resulted in a clinical relevant prognostic model that could be validated on the available datasets., Conclusion: The results imply that the study might have been influenced by a limited sample size, heterogeneous patient characteristics, and inconsistent imaging parameters. No prognostic performance of FDG-PET or CT based radiomics models can be reported. This study highlights the necessity of extensive evaluations of cohorts and of validation datasets, especially in retrospective multi-centric datasets., Competing Interests: Author RL is CTO and shareholder of Oncoradiomics SA and co-inventor of a patent related to Radiomics. Author PL is member of the advisory board, shareholder of Oncoradiomics SA and co-inventor of two licenced & approved patents on Radiomics.