PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of transforming a right-censored outcome into binary, continuous, and censored-aware representations on radiomics feature selection and subsequent prediction of overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Different feature selection techniques were applied using a binary outcome indicating event occurrence before median follow-up time, a continuous outcome using the Martingale residuals from a proportional hazards model, and the raw right-censored time-to-event outcome. Radiomic signatures combined with clinical variables were used for risk prediction. Three metrics for accuracy and calibration were used to evaluate eight feature selectors and six predictive models. RESULTS: Feature selection across 529 patients on more than 3,800 radiomic features resulted in increases ranging from 0.01 to 0.11 in C-index and area under the curve (AUC) scores compared with clinical features alone. The ensemble model yielded the best scores for AUC and C-index (often > 0.7) and calibration (Nam-D'Agostino test statistic often < 15.5 with 8 df). The random forest feature selectors achieved the best performance considering all metrics. Random regression forest performed the best in OS prediction with the ensemble model (AUC, 0.75; C-index, 0.76; calibration, 8.7). Random survival forest performed the best in RFS prediction with the ensemble model (AUC, 0.71; C-index, 0.68; calibration, 19.1). CONCLUSION: Including a radiomic signature results in better prediction than using only clinical data. Signatures generated randomly or without considering the outcome result in poor calibration scores. The random forest feature selectors for each of the three transformations typically selected the greatest number of features and produced the best predictions at acceptable calibration levels. In particular, random regression forest and random survival forest performed best for OS and RFS, respectively.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of transforming a right-censored outcome into binary, continuous, and censored-aware representations on radiomics feature selection and subsequent prediction of overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Different feature selection techniques were applied using a binary outcome indicating event occurrence before median follow-up time, a continuous outcome using the Martingale residuals from a proportional hazards model, and the raw right-censored time-to-event outcome. Radiomic signatures combined with clinical variables were used for risk prediction. Three metrics for accuracy and calibration were used to evaluate eight feature selectors and six predictive models. RESULTS: Feature selection across 529 patients on more than 3,800 radiomic features resulted in increases ranging from 0.01 to 0.11 in C-index and area under the curve (AUC) scores compared with clinical features alone. The ensemble model yielded the best scores for AUC and C-index (often > 0.7) and calibration (Nam-D'Agostino test statistic often < 15.5 with 8 df). The random forest feature selectors achieved the best performance considering all metrics. Random regression forest performed the best in OS prediction with the ensemble model (AUC, 0.75; C-index, 0.76; calibration, 8.7). Random survival forest performed the best in RFS prediction with the ensemble model (AUC, 0.71; C-index, 0.68; calibration, 19.1). CONCLUSION: Including a radiomic signature results in better prediction than using only clinical data. Signatures generated randomly or without considering the outcome result in poor calibration scores. The random forest feature selectors for each of the three transformations typically selected the greatest number of features and produced the best predictions at acceptable calibration levels. In particular, random regression forest and random survival forest performed best for OS and RFS, respectively.
Authors: Nicolas De Jay; Simon Papillon-Cavanagh; Catharina Olsen; Nehme El-Hachem; Gianluca Bontempi; Benjamin Haibe-Kains Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Chintan Parmar; Patrick Grossmann; Derek Rietveld; Michelle M Rietbergen; Philippe Lambin; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Stefan Leger; Alex Zwanenburg; Karoline Pilz; Fabian Lohaus; Annett Linge; Klaus Zöphel; Jörg Kotzerke; Andreas Schreiber; Inge Tinhofer; Volker Budach; Ali Sak; Martin Stuschke; Panagiotis Balermpas; Claus Rödel; Ute Ganswindt; Claus Belka; Steffi Pigorsch; Stephanie E Combs; David Mönnich; Daniel Zips; Mechthild Krause; Michael Baumann; Esther G C Troost; Steffen Löck; Christian Richter Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Hugo J W L Aerts; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Chintan Parmar; Patrick Grossmann; Sara Carvalho; Sara Cavalho; Johan Bussink; René Monshouwer; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Derek Rietveld; Frank Hoebers; Michelle M Rietbergen; C René Leemans; Andre Dekker; John Quackenbush; Robert J Gillies; Philippe Lambin Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Kang K Yan; Xiaofei Wang; Wendy W T Lam; Varut Vardhanabhuti; Anne W M Lee; Herbert H Pang Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Carla Floricel; Nafiul Nipu; Mikayla Biggs; Andrew Wentzel; Guadalupe Canahuate; Lisanne Van Dijk; Abdallah Mohamed; C David Fuller; G Elisabeta Marai Journal: IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 4.579
Authors: Yaohua Wang; Lisanne Van Dijk; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Clifton David Fuller; Xinhua Zhang; G Elisabeta Marai; Guadalupe Canahuate Journal: Proc Int Database Eng Appl Symp Date: 2021-09-07
Authors: Elisa Tardini; Xinhua Zhang; Guadalupe Canahuate; Andrew Wentzel; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Lisanne Van Dijk; Clifton D Fuller; G Elisabeta Marai Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Harsh Patel; David M Vock; G Elisabeta Marai; Clifton D Fuller; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Guadalupe Canahuate Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 4.379