ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Tackling external validation challenges: experience with normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for head and neck cancer radiotherapy toxicities.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAim of this study is to validate with an external independent cohort of patients previously published Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) models for radiation-related toxicity in head and neck cancer patients treated with curative radiotherapy (± associated systemic treatments).
methodsPatients treated from 2010 to 2022 at IEO were retrospectively reviewed. Five NTCP models for the following endpoints were evaluated: I) physician-rated swallowing dysfunction grade (G) 2-4, 6 months after RT; II) tube-feeding dependence (TFD) 6 months after RT; III) acute oral mucositis (OM) G ≥ 3 at any time during RT; IV) OM during RT treatment, mean G ≥ 1.5; V) G ≥ 2 laryngeal edema within 15 months from RT. External validation of the selected models on our cohorts was assessed evaluating the discriminating ability (in terms of Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC), Brier score) and the calibration (in terms of calibration intercept, calibration slope, and finally through the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test).
resultsA total of 97 patients met the inclusion criteria for dysphagia (5% events); 88 patients for TFD (3% events); 113 patients for OM G ≥ 3 (42% events); 114 patients for OM mean G ≥ 1.5 (63% events) and 102 patients for G ≥ 2 laryngeal edema (21% events). For all considered endpoints and all the considered models, the calculated NTCP was higher for patients who reported the corresponding toxicities, despite the difference was statistically significant for laryngeal edema only. Best-performing models were TFD (AUC = 0.73, CI: 0.24 - 1.22) and physician-rated swallowing dysfunction (AUC = 0.68, CI: 0.52 - 0.85), even if in both cases the low number of events influences the precision of the estimate, resulting in wide confidence intervals.
conclusionsOverall, results retrieved from our analysis confirm that NTCP model can be applied in populations with characteristics similar to those of the training cohorts. Nevertheless, our data also confirmed that external validation remains a challenge in particular when the numbers of events are low and patients' characteristics between the training and validating cohorts are different.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41874942What 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.