IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i6p693-705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Diagnostic Strategies to Manage Toxic Adverse Events following Cancer Immunotherapy

Author

Listed:
  • Frederik van Delft

    (Health Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, the Netherlands)

  • Mirte Muller

    (Department of Thoracic Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, the Netherlands)

  • Rom Langerak

    (Formal Methods and Tools Group, Faculty of EEMCS, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, the Netherlands)

  • Hendrik Koffijberg

    (Health Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, the Netherlands)

  • Valesca Retèl

    (Health Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, the Netherlands
    Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Daan van den Broek

    (Department of Thoracic Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, the Netherlands)

  • Maarten IJzerman

    (Health Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, the Netherlands
    Centre for Cancer Research and Centre for Health Policy, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia
    Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia)

Abstract

Background Although immunotherapy (IMT) provides significant survival benefits in selected patients, approximately 10% of patients experience (serious) immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The early detection of adverse events will prevent irAEs from progressing to severe stages, and routine testing for irAEs has become common practice. Because a positive test outcome might indicate a clinically manifesting irAE that requires treatment to (temporarily) discontinue, the occurrence of false-positive test outcomes is expected to negatively affect treatment outcomes. This study explores how the UPPAAL modeling environment can be used to assess the impact of test accuracy (i.e., test sensitivity and specificity), on the probability of patients entering palliative care within 11 IMT cycles. Methods A timed automata-based model was constructed using real-world data and expert consultation. Model calibration was performed using data from 248 non–small-cell lung cancer patients treated with nivolumab. A scenario analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of changes in test accuracy on the probability of patients transitioning to palliative care. Results The constructed model was used to estimate the cumulative probabilities for the patients’ transition to palliative care, which were found to match real-world clinical observations after model calibration. The scenario analysis showed that the specificity of laboratory tests for routine monitoring has a strong effect on the probability of patients transitioning to palliative care, whereas the effect of test sensitivity was limited. Conclusion We have obtained interesting insights by simulating a care pathway and disease progression using UPPAAL. The scenario analysis indicates that an increase in test specificity results in decreased discontinuation of treatment due to suspicion of irAEs, through a reduction of false-positive test outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederik van Delft & Mirte Muller & Rom Langerak & Hendrik Koffijberg & Valesca Retèl & Daan van den Broek & Maarten IJzerman, 2021. "Modeling Diagnostic Strategies to Manage Toxic Adverse Events following Cancer Immunotherapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(6), pages 693-705, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:6:p:693-705
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211002756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211002756
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211002756?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:6:p:693-705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.