Optimizing Clinical Outcome and Toxicity in Lung Cancer Using a Genomic Marker of Radiosensitivity
Scott, J. G.; Sedor, G.; Kattan, M. W.; Peacock, J.; Grass, G. D.; Mellon, E. A.; Thapa, R.; Schell, M.; Waller, A.; Poppen, S.; Andl, G.; Eschrich, S.; Dilling, T.; Dalton, W.; Harrison, L.; Fox, T.; Torres-Roca, J.
Show abstract
Cancer sequencing efforts have demonstrated that cancer is the most complex and heterogeneous disease that affects humans. However, radiation therapy, one of the most common cancer treatments, is prescribed based on an empiric one-size-fits all approach. We propose that the field of radiation oncology is operating under an outdated null hypothesis: that all patients are biologically similar and should uniformly respond to the same dose of radiation. We have previously developed the Genomic Adjusted Radiation Dose (GARD), a method which accounts for biological heterogeneity and can be utilized to predict optimal RT dose for an individual patient. In this article, we utilize GARD to characterize the biological imprecision of one-size-fits-all RT dosing schemes which result in both over- and under-dosing for the majority of patients treated with RT. To elucidate this inefficiency, and therefore the opportunity for improvement using a personalized dosing scheme, we develop a patient-specific competing hazards-style mathematical model combining the canonical equations for tumor control (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP). This model simultaneously optimizes tumor control and toxicity by personalizing RT dose using patient-specific genomics. Using data from two prospectively collected cohorts of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, we validate the competing hazards model by demonstrating that it predicts the results of RTOG 0617. We show how 0617 failure can be explained by the biological imprecision of empiric uniform dose escalation which results in 80% of patients being over-exposed to normal tissue toxicity without potential tumor control benefit. In conclusion, our data reveals a tapestry of radiosensitivity heterogeneity, provides a biological framework that explains the failure of empiric RT dose escalation, and quantifies the opportunity to improve clinical outcomes in lung cancer by incorporating genomics into RT.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Cluster-Based Toxicity Estimation of Osteoradionecrosis via Unsupervised Machine Learning: Moving Beyond Single Dose-Parameter Normal Tissue Complication Probability by Using Whole Dose-Volume Histograms for Cohort Risk Stratification 95%
- Revisiting a null hypothesis: exploring the parameters of oligometastasis treatment 95%
- Bayesian Learning to Reduce Cardiac Risk for Locally Advanced NSCLC Patients Based on Personalized Radiotherapy Prescription 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Precision association of lymphatic disease spread with radiation-associated toxicity in oropharyngeal squamous carcinomas 93%
- Evaluation of indirect damage and damage saturation effects in dose-response curves of hypofractionated radiotherapy of early-stage NSCLC and brain metastases 92%
- Deep learning NTCP model for late dysphagia after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer patients based on 3D dose, CT and segmentations 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Intermittent radiotherapy as alternative treatment for recurrent high grade glioma: A modelling study based on longitudinal tumor measurements 93%
- New Approaches for Quantitative Reconstruction of Radiation Dose in Human Blood Cells 93%
- Race and Ethnic Group Dependent Space Radiation Cancer Risk Predictions 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Enhanced perfusion following exposure to radiotherapy: a theoretical investigation 94%
- Radiation necrosis after radiation therapy treatment of brain metastases: A computational approach 93%
- Combining Hypoxia-Activated Prodrugs and Radiotherapy in silico: Impact of Treatment Scheduling and the Intra-Tumoural Oxygen Landscape 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.