MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389778094 · doi:10.1002/mp.16893

Predicting the need for a replan in oropharyngeal cancer: A radiomic, clinical, and dosimetric model

2023· article· en· W4389778094 on OpenAlexafffund
Tricia Chinnery, Pencilla Lang, Anthony C. Nichols, Sarah A. Mattonen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsCentre for Imaging Technology CommercializationWestern University
FundersLondon Health Sciences Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRadiation treatment planningRadiologyCancerMedical physicsNuclear medicineRadiation therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) treated with chemoradiation can experience weight loss and tumor shrinkage, altering the prescribed treatment. Treatment replanning ensures patients do not receive excessive doses to normal tissue. However, it is a time- and resource-intensive process, as it takes 1 to 2 weeks to acquire a new treatment plan, and during this time, overtreatment of normal tissues could lead to increased toxicities. Currently, there are limited prognostic factors to determine which patients will require a replan. There remains an unmet need for predictive models to assist in identifying patients who could benefit from the knowledge of a replan prior to treatment. PURPOSE: We aimed to develop and evaluate a CT-based radiomic model, integrating clinical and dosimetric information, to predict the need for a replan prior to treatment. METHODS: A dataset of patients (n = 315) with OPC treated with chemoradiation was used for this study. The dataset was split into independent training (n = 220) and testing (n = 95) datasets. Tumor volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured on planning CT images. PyRadiomics was used to compute radiomic image features (n = 1218) on the original and filtered images from each of the primary tumor, nodal volumes, and ipsilateral and contralateral parotid glands. Nine clinical features and nine dose features extracted from the OARs were collected and those significantly (p < 0.05) associated with the need for a replan in the training dataset were used in a baseline model. Random forest feature selection was applied to select the optimal radiomic features to predict replanning. Logistic regression, Naïve Bayes, support vector machine, and random forest classifiers were built using the non-correlated selected radiomic, clinical, and dose features on the training dataset and performance was assessed in the testing dataset. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the prognostic value. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients (25%) required a replan. Smoking status, nodal stage, base of tongue subsite, and larynx mean dose were found to be significantly associated with the need for a replan in the training dataset and incorporated into the baseline model, as well as into the combined models. Five predictive radiomic features were selected (one nodal volume, one primary tumor, two ipsilateral and one contralateral parotid gland). The baseline model comprised of clinical and dose features alone achieved an AUC of 0.66 [95% CI: 0.51-0.79] in the testing dataset. The random forest classifier was the top-performing radiomics model and achieved an AUC of 0.82 [0.75-0.89] in the training dataset and an AUC of 0.78 [0.68-0.87] in the testing dataset, which significantly outperformed the baseline model (p = 0.023, testing dataset). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to use radiomics from the primary tumor, nodal volumes, and parotid glands for the prediction of replanning for patients with OPC. Radiomic features augmented clinical and dose features for predicting the need for a replan in our testing dataset. Once validated, this model has the potential to assist physicians in identifying patients that may benefit from a replan, allowing for better resource allocation and reduced toxicities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207