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

Publication date

2026-07

Authors

Choi, JungyeonORCID 0000-0002-1914-3488
Leeuwenberg, Artuur M
Meijerink, Lotta MORCID 0000-0002-1511-6781
Moons, Karel G MISNI 0000000390720943
Reitsma, Johannes J BISNI 0000000389855461
Penning de Vries, Bas B L
van Amsterdam, Wouter A CORCID 0000-0002-3181-0810
van Loon, Judith G M
Nout, Remi A
Langendijk, Johannes A

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article

Collections

Open Access logo

License

cc_by

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.

Keywords

Counterfactual prediction, Model-based approach, Model-based clinical evaluation of therapeutic interventions, Proton therapy, Radiation therapy, Journal Article

Citation

Choi, J, Leeuwenberg, A M, Meijerink, L M, Moons, K G M, Reitsma, J J B, Penning de Vries, B B L, van Amsterdam, W A C, van Loon, J G M, Nout, R A, Langendijk, J A, Boersma, L J & Schuit, E 2026, 'Missing confounding information in counterfactual prediction models : a simulation study on model-based treatment effect evaluation in radiotherapy techniques', Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, vol. 220, 111537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111537