Missing confounding information in counterfactual prediction models: a simulation study on model-based treatment effect evaluation in radiotherapy techniques

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Model-Based Clinical Evaluation (MBCE) uses counterfactual prediction to estimate causal treatment effects on radiation-induced toxicity reduction between radiotherapy techniques, such as proton versus photon therapy. In the Netherlands, patient selection for proton therapy follows a model-based approach using Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) models. These models prioritize prediction over causal inference and may potentially omit confounders influencing dose-toxicity relationships. This raises the question of whether NTCP models used for patient selection are suitable for MBCE. This study examines how omitted confounders in NTCP models and patient selection affect the validity of MBCE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We simulated head and neck photon therapy patients while varying a confounder's effect on radiation dose and toxicity. Model-based selection for proton therapy followed the Dutch National Indication Protocol. The average treatment effect in the proton-treated group (ATT) was estimated using a current NTCP model (excluding the confounder) and an extended NTCP model (including the confounder), then compared to the true effect. Additional simulations explored modified patient-selection scenarios. RESULTS: In the primary simulation, the current model produced unbiased ATT estimates, because the omitted confounder was conditionally independent of patient selection. When this assumption was violated, i.e., when the omitted predictor was associated with patient-selection, the current model introduced bias while the extended model did not. CONCLUSION: Omitting confounders in NTCP models for MBCE does not inherently bias MBCE estimates. However, its validity depends on whether omitted predictors are associated with the patient-selection mechanism. We recommend including outcome predictors related to treatment allocation in NTCP models used for MBCE.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Published
2026-04-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111537
Primary Topic
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Missing confounding information in counterfactual prediction models: a simulation study on model-based treatment effect evaluation in radiotherapy techniques

Johannes A. Langendijk, Lotta Meijerink, Jungyeon Choi, Liesbeth Boersma et al.
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
article

Missing confounding information in counterfactual prediction models: a simulation study on model-based treatment effect evaluation in radiotherapy techniques

Johannes A. Langendijk, Lotta Meijerink, Jungyeon Choi, Liesbeth Boersma, Bas B. L. Penning de Vries, Remi A. Nout, Wouter A. C. van Amsterdam, Artuur Leeuwenberg, Judith G.M. van Loon, Ewoud Schuit, Johannes J.B. Reitsma, Karel G.M. Moons
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Model-Based Clinical Evaluation (MBCE) uses counterfactual prediction to estimate causal treatment effects on radiation-induced toxicity reduction between radiotherapy techniques, such as proton versus photon therapy. In the Netherlands, patient selection for proton therapy follows a model-based approach using Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) models. These models prioritize prediction over causal inference and may potentially omit confounders influencing dose-toxicity relationships. This raises the question of whether NTCP models used for patient selection are suitable for MBCE. This study examines how omitted confounders in NTCP models and patient selection affect the validity of MBCE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We simulated head and neck photon therapy patients while varying a confounder's effect on radiation dose and toxicity. Model-based selection for proton therapy followed the Dutch National Indication Protocol. The average treatment effect in the proton-treated group (ATT) was estimated using a current NTCP model (excluding the confounder) and an extended NTCP model (including the confounder), then compared to the true effect. Additional simulations explored modified patient-selection scenarios. RESULTS: In the primary simulation, the current model produced unbiased ATT estimates, because the omitted confounder was conditionally independent of patient selection. When this assumption was violated, i.e., when the omitted predictor was associated with patient-selection, the current model introduced bias while the extended model did not. CONCLUSION: Omitting confounders in NTCP models for MBCE does not inherently bias MBCE estimates. However, its validity depends on whether omitted predictors are associated with the patient-selection mechanism. We recommend including outcome predictors related to treatment allocation in NTCP models used for MBCE.

Radiotherapy and OncologyVol. 220
University Medical Center Groningen (NL), Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL), Erasmus MC (NL), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL), Maastricht University (NL)
ZonMw
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.