Bulat Ibragimov1, Diego Toesca1, Daniel Chang1, Yixuan Yuan2, Albert Koong3, Lei Xing1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. Department of Electronic Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of radiation toxicity of healthy organs-at-risks (OARs) critically determines the radiation therapy (RT) success. The existing dose-volume histogram-based metric may grossly under/overestimate the therapeutic toxicity after 27% in liver RT and 50% in head-and-neck RT. We propose the novel paradigm for toxicity prediction by leveraging the enormous potential of deep learning and go beyond the existing dose/volume histograms. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We employed a database of 125 liver stereotactic body RT (SBRT) cases with follow-up data to train deep learning-based toxicity predictor. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were applied to discover the consistent patterns in 3D dose plans associated with toxicities. To enhance the predicting power, we first pretrain the CNNs with transfer learning from 3D CT images of 2644 human organs. CNNs were then trained on liver SBRT cases. Furthermore, nondosimetric pretreatment features, such as patients' demographics, underlying liver diseases, liver-directed therapies, were inputted into the fully connected neural network for more comprehensive prediction. The saliency maps of CNNs were used to estimate the toxicity risks associated with irradiation of anatomical regions of specific OARs. In addition, we applied machine learning solutions to map numerical pretreatment features with hepatobiliary toxicity manifestation. RESULTS: Among 125 liver SBRT patients, 58 were treated for liver metastases, 36 for hepatocellular carcinoma, 27 for cholangiocarcinoma, and 4 for other histologies. We observed that CNN we able to achieve accurate hepatobiliary toxicity prediction with the AUC of 0.79, whereas combining CNN for 3D dose plan analysis and fully connected neural networks for numerical feature analysis resulted in AUC of 0.85. Deep learning produces almost two times fewer false-positive toxicity predictions in comparison to DVH-based predictions, when the number of false negatives, i.e., missed toxicities, was minimized. The CNN saliency maps automatically estimated the toxicity risks for portal vein (PV) regions. We discovered that irradiation of the proximal portal vein is associated with two times higher toxicity risks (risk score: 0.66) that irradiation of the left portal vein (risk score: 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The framework offers clinically accurate tools for hepatobiliary toxicity prediction and automatic identification of anatomical regions that are critical to spare during SBRT.
BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of radiation toxicity of healthy organs-at-risks (OARs) critically determines the radiation therapy (RT) success. The existing dose-volume histogram-based metric may grossly under/overestimate the therapeutic toxicity after 27% in liver RT and 50% in head-and-neck RT. We propose the novel paradigm for toxicity prediction by leveraging the enormous potential of deep learning and go beyond the existing dose/volume histograms. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We employed a database of 125 liver stereotactic body RT (SBRT) cases with follow-up data to train deep learning-based toxicity predictor. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were applied to discover the consistent patterns in 3D dose plans associated with toxicities. To enhance the predicting power, we first pretrain the CNNs with transfer learning from 3D CT images of 2644 human organs. CNNs were then trained on liver SBRT cases. Furthermore, nondosimetric pretreatment features, such as patients' demographics, underlying liver diseases, liver-directed therapies, were inputted into the fully connected neural network for more comprehensive prediction. The saliency maps of CNNs were used to estimate the toxicity risks associated with irradiation of anatomical regions of specific OARs. In addition, we applied machine learning solutions to map numerical pretreatment features with hepatobiliary toxicity manifestation. RESULTS: Among 125 liver SBRT patients, 58 were treated for liver metastases, 36 for hepatocellular carcinoma, 27 for cholangiocarcinoma, and 4 for other histologies. We observed that CNN we able to achieve accurate hepatobiliary toxicity prediction with the AUC of 0.79, whereas combining CNN for 3D dose plan analysis and fully connected neural networks for numerical feature analysis resulted in AUC of 0.85. Deep learning produces almost two times fewer false-positive toxicity predictions in comparison to DVH-based predictions, when the number of false negatives, i.e., missed toxicities, was minimized. The CNN saliency maps automatically estimated the toxicity risks for portal vein (PV) regions. We discovered that irradiation of the proximal portal vein is associated with two times higher toxicity risks (risk score: 0.66) that irradiation of the left portal vein (risk score: 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The framework offers clinically accurate tools for hepatobiliary toxicity prediction and automatic identification of anatomical regions that are critical to spare during SBRT.
Authors: Charlie C Pan; Brian D Kavanagh; Laura A Dawson; X Allen Li; Shiva K Das; Moyed Miften; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Duc Fehr; Harini Veeraraghavan; Andreas Wibmer; Tatsuo Gondo; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Herbert Alberto Vargas; Evis Sala; Hedvig Hricak; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Haruka Itakura; Achal S Achrol; Lex A Mitchell; Joshua J Loya; Tiffany Liu; Erick M Westbroek; Abdullah H Feroze; Scott Rodriguez; Sebastian Echegaray; Tej D Azad; Kristen W Yeom; Sandy Napel; Daniel L Rubin; Steven D Chang; Griffith R Harsh; Olivier Gevaert Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Theodore S Hong; Jennifer Y Wo; Beow Y Yeap; Edgar Ben-Josef; Erin I McDonnell; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Eunice L Kwak; Jill N Allen; Jeffrey W Clark; Lipika Goyal; Janet E Murphy; Milind M Javle; John A Wolfgang; Lorraine C Drapek; Ronald S Arellano; Harvey J Mamon; John T Mullen; Sam S Yoon; Kenneth K Tanabe; Cristina R Ferrone; David P Ryan; Thomas F DeLaney; Christopher H Crane; Andrew X Zhu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kun-Hsing Yu; Ce Zhang; Gerald J Berry; Russ B Altman; Christopher Ré; Daniel L Rubin; Michael Snyder Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Wei Zhao; Liyue Shen; Bin Han; Yong Yang; Kai Cheng; Diego A S Toesca; Albert C Koong; Daniel T Chang; Lei Xing Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kuo Men; Huaizhi Geng; Chingyun Cheng; Haoyu Zhong; Mi Huang; Yong Fan; John P Plastaras; Alexander Lin; Ying Xiao Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ana Barragán-Montero; Umair Javaid; Gilmer Valdés; Dan Nguyen; Paul Desbordes; Benoit Macq; Siri Willems; Liesbeth Vandewinckele; Mats Holmström; Fredrik Löfman; Steven Michiels; Kevin Souris; Edmond Sterpin; John A Lee Journal: Phys Med Date: 2021-05-09 Impact factor: 2.685