Dosimetric Parameters Related to Acute Radiation Dermatitis of Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Treated by Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy

Fang, Ko-Chun; Huang, Tai‐Lin; Liao, Kuang-Ming; Lee, Tsair-Fwu; Hsieh, Yang-Wei; Tsai, Wen‐Ling; Fang, Fu‐Min

doi:10.3390/jpm12071095

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, PTR features show heterogeneity in the sample. However, Regarding the heterogeneity as reported in the fraction schedule [ 57 ], chemotherapy [ 65 ], surgery type [ 18 ], plan boost [ 46 ], treatment area [ 66 ], and nodal irradiation [ 67 ] in similar studies, it appears that these features have a heterogeneous nature. Therefore, considering potential variations in a homogeneous sample size, we recommend a cautious interpretation of the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dosiomics model for prediction of radiation-induced acute skin toxicity in breast cancer patients: machine learning-based study for a closed bore linac

Saadatmand,

Mahdavi,

Nikoofar

et al. 2024

Eur J Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Radiation induced acute skin toxicity (AST) is considered as a common side effect of breast radiation therapy. The goal of this study was to design dosiomics-based machine learning (ML) models for prediction of AST, to enable creating optimized treatment plans for high-risk individuals. Methods Dosiomics features extracted using Pyradiomics tool (v3.0.1), along with treatment plan-derived dose volume histograms (DVHs), and patient-specific treatment-related (PTR) data of breast cancer patients were used for modeling. Clinical scoring was done using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) V4.0 criteria for skin-specific symptoms. The 52 breast cancer patients were grouped into AST 2 + (CTCAE ≥ 2) and AST 2 − (CTCAE < 2) toxicity grades to facilitate AST modeling. They were randomly divided into training (70%) and testing (30%) cohorts. Multiple prediction models were assessed through multivariate analysis, incorporating different combinations of feature groups (dosiomics, DVH, and PTR) individually and collectively. In total, seven unique combinations, along with seven classification algorithms, were considered after feature selection. The performance of each model was evaluated on the test group using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and f1-score. Accuracy, precision, and recall of each model were also studied. Statistical analysis involved features differences between AST 2 − and AST 2 + groups and cutoff value calculations. Results Results showed that 44% of the patients developed AST 2 + after Tomotherapy. The dosiomics (DOS) model, developed using dosiomics features, exhibited a noteworthy improvement in AUC (up to 0.78), when spatial information is preserved in the dose distribution, compared to DVH features (up to 0.71). Furthermore, a baseline ML model created using only PTR features for comparison with DOS models showed the significance of dosiomics in early AST prediction. By employing the Extra Tree (ET) classifiers, the DOS + DVH + PTR model achieved a statistically significant improved performance in terms of AUC (0.83; 95% CI 0.71–0.90), accuracy (0.70), precision (0.74) and sensitivity (0.72) compared to other models. Conclusions This study confirmed the benefit of dosiomics-based ML in the prediction of AST. However, the combination of dosiomics, DVH, and PTR yields significant improvement in AST prediction. The results of this study provide the opportunity for timely interventions to prevent the occurrence of radiation induced AST.

show abstract