ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025
Validated prediction of xerostomia in a real-world population: a step toward model-guided radiotherapy.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe aim of this study is to validate an Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) model for xerostomia in a large quality-registry cohort, enabling its future use in individualized NTCP-based treatment planning. MATERIAL AND
methodsA model predicting grade ≥ 2 xerostomia (6 months post-radiotherapy) was selected for validation, including the mean dose to both the parotid and the submandibular glands, in addition to the baseline score for xerostomia, as predictors. Our local validation cohort consisted of 674 patients (204 events), treated between 2012 and 2024, with a median follow-up of 10.3 months (range 5-24). A closed testing procedure was performed to investigate the need for model updating, and the performance of the models was assessed with calibration curves, discrimination, the Brier score, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
resultsThe calibration curve demonstrated that the model predicted the dose-response relationship well. The validation cohort showed a slightly stronger dose response, with a slope of 1.16. The calibration intercept of -0.12 revealed an overestimation of xerostomia. However, the closed testing procedure indicated that a recalibration of the model was needed, and the HL-test showed a significant deviation. The recalibrated model showed perfect calibration but still limited discrimination (Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.62).
conclusionThe validated model performed well in our real-life dataset despite the differences between the training and validation cohorts, particularly considering the lack of baseline score in our cohort. This highlights the potential for improved performance with baseline inclusion but still suggests that an individualized NTCP-based treatment-planning protocol can be developed using the recalibrated published model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.