Back

Multi-region Multiomic Random Forest Toxicity Modeling of Radiation Pneumonitis.

Nair, S. S.; Salazar, R. M.; Leone, A. O.; Xu, T.; Liao, Z.; Court, L. E.; Niedzielski, J. S.

2024-05-24 oncology
10.1101/2024.05.23.24307616 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeRadiation pneumonitis (RP) is a major dose-limiting toxicity resulting from non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) radiotherapy. Multiomic features (radiomics and dosiomics) could provide additional predictive information as compared to traditionally used clinical and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. We aimed to investigate the utility of multiomic features to improve RP toxicity models. MethodsOut of 329 NSCLC patients considered, 85 patients (25.84%) were found to have toxicity [&ge;] grade 2 RP per CTCAE v5.0. A total of 422 radiomic and dosiomic features were extracted. Four toxicity prediction model types were created using clinical factors together with respective features from one of the following groups: (a) DVH (base model), (b) whole lung radiomics and dosiomics (WL-RD), (c) multi-region radiomics and dosiomics (MR - RD) and (d) multi-region DVH, radiomics and dosiomics (MR-DVHRD). Toxicity models were created using a random forest classifier with a Monte Carlo cross-validation approach of 100 iterations, and a training/test split of 80%/20%, respectively. Model predictive performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). ResultsThe AUC and AUPRC values (mean {+/-} standard deviation) for the 4 model types were 0.81{+/-}0.04/0.70{+/-}0.06 (base model), 0.82{+/-}0.05/0.73{+/-}0.08 (WL-RD, p<0.05), 0.83{+/-}0.06/0.75{+/-}0.08 (MR-RD, p<0.05), and 0.82{+/-}0.05/0.72{+/-}0.08 (MR-DVHRD, p<0.05), respectively, wherein a paired test compared the performance metrics of omic models with the base model built on each iteration of cross0020validation. ConclusionsAll multiomic model types outperformed the base DVH model. MR-RD model had the best performance among all model types.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.