PURPOSE: To determine under what conditions positron emission tomography (PET) imaging will be useful in decisions regarding the use of radiotherapy for the treatment of clinically occult lymph node metastases in head-and-neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A decision model of PET imaging and its downstream effects on radiotherapy outcomes was constructed using an influence diagram. This model included the sensitivity and specificity of PET, as well as the type and stage of the primary tumor. These parameters were varied to determine the optimal strategy for imaging and therapy for different clinical situations. Maximum expected utility was the metric by which different actions were ranked. RESULTS: For primary tumors with a low probability of lymph node metastases, the sensitivity of PET should be maximized, and 50 Gy should be delivered if PET is positive and 0 Gy if negative. As the probability for lymph node metastases increases, PET imaging becomes unnecessary in some situations, and the optimal dose to the lymph nodes increases. The model needed to include the causes of certain health states to predict current clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The model demonstrated the ability to reproduce expected outcomes for a range of tumors and provided recommendations for different clinical situations. The differences between the optimal policies and current clinical practice are likely due to a disparity between stated clinical decision processes and actual decision making by clinicians.
PURPOSE: To determine under what conditions positron emission tomography (PET) imaging will be useful in decisions regarding the use of radiotherapy for the treatment of clinically occult lymph node metastases in head-and-neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A decision model of PET imaging and its downstream effects on radiotherapy outcomes was constructed using an influence diagram. This model included the sensitivity and specificity of PET, as well as the type and stage of the primary tumor. These parameters were varied to determine the optimal strategy for imaging and therapy for different clinical situations. Maximum expected utility was the metric by which different actions were ranked. RESULTS: For primary tumors with a low probability of lymph node metastases, the sensitivity of PET should be maximized, and 50 Gy should be delivered if PET is positive and 0 Gy if negative. As the probability for lymph node metastases increases, PET imaging becomes unnecessary in some situations, and the optimal dose to the lymph nodes increases. The model needed to include the causes of certain health states to predict current clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The model demonstrated the ability to reproduce expected outcomes for a range of tumors and provided recommendations for different clinical situations. The differences between the optimal policies and current clinical practice are likely due to a disparity between stated clinical decision processes and actual decision making by clinicians.
Authors: S J Jansen; A M Stiggelbout; P P Wakker; T P Vliet Vlieland; J W Leer; M A Nooy; J Kievit Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1998 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Dominic A X Schinagl; Aswin L Hoffmann; Wouter V Vogel; Jorn A van Dalen; Suzan M M Verstappen; Wim J G Oyen; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Ursula Schroeder; Markus Dietlein; Claus Wittekindt; Monika Ortmann; Hartmut Stuetzer; Julia Vent; Markus Jungehuelsing; Barbara Krug Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Giuseppe Sanguineti; Joseph Califano; Edward Stafford; Jana Fox; Wayne Koch; Ralph Tufano; Maria Pia Sormani; Arlene Forastiere Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-01-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David J Sher; Eve Wittenberg; W Warren Suh; Alphonse G Taghian; Rinaa S Punglia Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-10-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christine G Gourin; Brian J Boyce; Hadyn T Williams; Anne V Herdman; Paul A Bilodeau; Teresa A Coleman Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Johnny Kao; Ha Linh Vu; Eric M Genden; Bharat Mocherla; Eunice E Park; Stuart Packer; Peter M Som; Lale Kostakoglu Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kyle E Rusthoven; David Raben; Charles Schneider; Robert Witt; Sarah Sammons; Adam Raben Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hyunggu Jung; Anthony Law; Eli Grunblatt; Lucy L Wang; Aaron Kusano; Jose L V Mejino; Mark E Whipple Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2017-02-10
Authors: Val J Lowe; Fenghai Duan; Rathan M Subramaniam; JoRean D Sicks; Justin Romanoff; Twyla Bartel; Jian Q Michael Yu; Brian Nussenbaum; Jeremy Richmon; Charles D Arnold; David Cognetti; Brendan C Stack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Issam El Naqa; Dan Ruan; Gilmer Valdes; Andre Dekker; Todd McNutt; Yaorong Ge; Q Jackie Wu; Jung Hun Oh; Maria Thor; Wade Smith; Arvind Rao; Clifton Fuller; Ying Xiao; Frank Manion; Matthew Schipper; Charles Mayo; Jean M Moran; Randall Ten Haken Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Wade P Smith; Patrick J Richard; Jing Zeng; Smith Apisarnthanarax; Ramesh Rengan; Mark H Phillips Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2018-04
Authors: Yi Luo; Shruti Jolly; David Palma; Theodore S Lawrence; Huan-Hsin Tseng; Gilmer Valdes; Daniel McShan; Randall K Ten Haken; Issam Ei Naqa Journal: Phys Med Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.119