放疗后局部控制的统计策略分析。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111758
Tetsuo Saito , Kenta Murotani , Takeshi Kodaira , Naoto Shikama , Yoshinori Ito , Naoki Nakamura , Takashi Mizowaki , Yoshikazu Kagami
{"title":"放疗后局部控制的统计策略分析。","authors":"Tetsuo Saito ,&nbsp;Kenta Murotani ,&nbsp;Takeshi Kodaira ,&nbsp;Naoto Shikama ,&nbsp;Yoshinori Ito ,&nbsp;Naoki Nakamura ,&nbsp;Takashi Mizowaki ,&nbsp;Yoshikazu Kagami","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Historically, local progression, an outcome of effectiveness in curative radiotherapy, has not always been statistically analyzed with the same method. This article aims to elucidate the validity and relative usefulness of statistical strategies to analyze local control. In an application example, data were analyzed from a phase III trial comparing different radiation schedules for glottic cancer. The superiority of experimental treatment over standard treatment in local control was detected by a competing risks model but not detected in the analysis of local progression-free survival by a standard survival model. The use of a composite outcome, local progression-free survival, is suboptimal in that local progression and death are equally treated as the events of interest. In the analysis of local progression-free rate, by censoring death, the cumulative incidence of local progression is overestimated. We recommend the consistent use of the cumulative incidence of local progression as the end point to assess local control after radiotherapy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 111758"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Statistical strategies to analyze local control after radiotherapy\",\"authors\":\"Tetsuo Saito ,&nbsp;Kenta Murotani ,&nbsp;Takeshi Kodaira ,&nbsp;Naoto Shikama ,&nbsp;Yoshinori Ito ,&nbsp;Naoki Nakamura ,&nbsp;Takashi Mizowaki ,&nbsp;Yoshikazu Kagami\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111758\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Historically, local progression, an outcome of effectiveness in curative radiotherapy, has not always been statistically analyzed with the same method. This article aims to elucidate the validity and relative usefulness of statistical strategies to analyze local control. In an application example, data were analyzed from a phase III trial comparing different radiation schedules for glottic cancer. The superiority of experimental treatment over standard treatment in local control was detected by a competing risks model but not detected in the analysis of local progression-free survival by a standard survival model. The use of a composite outcome, local progression-free survival, is suboptimal in that local progression and death are equally treated as the events of interest. In the analysis of local progression-free rate, by censoring death, the cumulative incidence of local progression is overestimated. We recommend the consistent use of the cumulative incidence of local progression as the end point to assess local control after radiotherapy.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"182 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111758\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000915\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000915","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

历史上,局部进展,治疗性放疗有效性的结果,并不总是用相同的方法进行统计分析。本文旨在阐明统计策略分析局部控制的有效性和相对有用性。在一个应用实例中,分析了一项比较不同放疗方案治疗声门癌的III期试验的数据。竞争风险模型检测了实验治疗在局部控制方面优于标准治疗,但在标准生存模型的局部无进展生存分析中未检测到。使用复合结局,局部无进展生存期,是次优的,因为局部进展和死亡同样被视为感兴趣的事件。在局部无进展率分析中,通过剔除死亡,局部进展的累积发生率被高估了。我们建议一致使用局部进展的累积发生率作为评估放疗后局部控制的终点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Statistical strategies to analyze local control after radiotherapy
Historically, local progression, an outcome of effectiveness in curative radiotherapy, has not always been statistically analyzed with the same method. This article aims to elucidate the validity and relative usefulness of statistical strategies to analyze local control. In an application example, data were analyzed from a phase III trial comparing different radiation schedules for glottic cancer. The superiority of experimental treatment over standard treatment in local control was detected by a competing risks model but not detected in the analysis of local progression-free survival by a standard survival model. The use of a composite outcome, local progression-free survival, is suboptimal in that local progression and death are equally treated as the events of interest. In the analysis of local progression-free rate, by censoring death, the cumulative incidence of local progression is overestimated. We recommend the consistent use of the cumulative incidence of local progression as the end point to assess local control after radiotherapy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
期刊最新文献
'Identifying Social Factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes (ISSHOOs) in Pain Research': Explanation and elaboration to support the standardised reporting of equity-relevant data. Evaluation of tools used to assess adherence to PRISMA 2020 reveals inconsistent methods and poor tool implementability: part I of a systematic review. Use of minimum et maximum pre-test probabilities to conclude with confidence after obtaining a diagnostic test result. Modifiable methodological and reporting practices are associated with reproducibility of health sciences research: a systematic review and evidence and gap map. Long Title: Challenges in handling allogeneic stem cell transplantation in randomized clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1