Validation of Normal Tissue Complication Probability Predictions in Individual Patient: Late Rectal Toxicity

Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Electronic address: .
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics (Impact Factor: 4.26). 09/2012; 85(4). DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.07.2375
Source: PubMed


To perform validation of risk predictions for late rectal toxicity (LRT) in prostate cancer obtained using a new approach to synthesize published normal tissue complication data.

Methods and materials:
A published study survey was performed to identify the dose-response relationships for LRT derived from nonoverlapping patient populations. To avoid mixing models based on different symptoms, the emphasis was placed on rectal bleeding. The selected models were used to compute the risk estimates of grade 2+ and grade 3+ LRT for an independent validation cohort composed of 269 prostate cancer patients with known toxicity outcomes. Risk estimates from single studies were combined to produce consolidated risk estimates. An agreement between the actuarial toxicity incidence 3 years after radiation therapy completion and single-study or consolidated risk estimates was evaluated using the concordance correlation coefficient. Goodness of fit for the consolidated risk estimates was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.

A total of 16 studies of grade 2+ and 5 studies of grade 3+ LRT met the inclusion criteria. The consolidated risk estimates of grade 2+ and 3+ LRT were constructed using 3 studies each. For grade 2+ LRT, the concordance correlation coefficient for the consolidated risk estimates was 0.537 compared with 0.431 for the best-fit single study. For grade 3+ LRT, the concordance correlation coefficient for the consolidated risk estimates was 0.477 compared with 0.448 for the best-fit single study. No evidence was found for a lack of fit for the consolidated risk estimates using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P=.531 and P=.397 for grade 2+ and 3+ LRT, respectively).

In a large cohort of prostate cancer patients, selected sets of consolidated risk estimates were found to be more accurate predictors of LRT than risk estimates derived from any single study.

8 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose To measure concordance among genitourinary radiation oncologists in using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTC) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading scales to grade rectal bleeding. Methods and Materials From June 2013 to January 2014, a Web-based survey was sent to 250 American and Canadian academic radiation oncologists who treat prostate cancer. Participants were provided 4 case vignettes in which patients received radiation therapy and developed rectal bleeding and were asked for management plans and to rate the bleeding according to NCI CTC v.4 and RTOG late toxicity grading (scales provided). In 2 cases, participants were also asked whether they would send the patient for colonoscopy. A multilevel, random intercept modeling approach was used to assess sources of variation (case, respondent) in toxicity grading to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement on a dichotomous grading scale (low grades 1-2 vs high grades 3-4) was also assessed, using the κ statistic for multiple respondents. Results Seventy-two radiation oncologists (28%) completed the survey. Forty-seven (65%) reported having either written or been principal investigator on a study using these scales. Agreement between respondents was moderate (ICC 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.58) when using NCI CTC and fair using the RTOG scale (ICC 0.28, 95% CI 0.20-0.40). Respondents who chose an invasive management were more likely to select a higher toxicity grade (P<.0001). Using the dichotomous scale, we observed moderate agreement (κ = 0.42, 95% CI 0.40-0.44) with the NCI CTC scale, but only slight agreement with the RTOG scale (κ = 0.19, 95% CI 0.17-0.21). Conclusion Low interrater reliability was observed among radiation oncologists grading rectal bleeding using 2 common scales. Clearer definitions of late rectal bleeding toxicity should be constructed to reduce this variability and avoid ambiguity in both reporting and interpretation.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 10/2014; 90(5). DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.08.014 · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the UK, about 90 000 cancer survivors will suffer from pelvic radiation disease (PRD) due to their curative treatment including radiotherapy. The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative aims to improve the understanding and management of PRD by the oncology community. This overview covers the prevention, investigation and treatment for late radiation-induced gastrointestinal symptoms in PRD. Multiple pharmacological and nutritional interventions have been studied, as prophylaxis for acute gastrointestinal toxicity (aiming to prevent late consequential effects), although predominantly only small randomised controlled trials have been conducted. These have produced mixed results, although promising signals for some agents have been observed. Evidence for the pharmacological prevention of late gastrointestinal toxicity is scarce. Even fewer randomised controlled trials have investigated the late gastrointestinal toxicity profile of advanced radiotherapy technologies. There are nationally agreed algorithms for the investigation and management of PRD, but a lack of awareness means patients still do not get referred appropriately. This overview outlines the management of radiation proctopathy and diarrhoea, and signposts other accessible resources. Finally, we provide recommendations for the management of late gastrointestinal symptoms in PRD and research in this field, especially the need for high-quality clinical trials. Copyright © 2015 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Clinical Oncology 06/2015; 27(11). DOI:10.1016/j.clon.2015.06.010 · 3.40 Impact Factor