Literature DB >> 30652615

Evaluating the Effect of Right-Censored End Point Transformation for Radiomic Feature Selection of Data From Patients With Oropharyngeal Cancer.

Luka Zdilar1, David M Vock1, G Elisabeta Marai1, Clifton D Fuller1, Abdallah S R Mohamed1, Hesham Elhalawani1, Baher Ahmed Elgohari1, Carly Tiras1, Austin Miller1, Guadalupe Canahuate1.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30652615      PMCID: PMC6354589          DOI: 10.1200/CCI.18.00052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform        ISSN: 2473-4276


  16 in total

1.  WilcoxCV: an R package for fast variable selection in cross-validation.

Authors:  Anne-Laure Boulesteix
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  mRMRe: an R package for parallelized mRMR ensemble feature selection.

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

3.  4. Definition of volumes.

Authors: 
Journal:  J ICRU       Date:  2010-04

4.  Radiomics in head and neck cancer: from exploration to application.

Authors:  Andrew J Wong; Aasheesh Kanwar; Abdallah S Mohamed; Clifton D Fuller
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.241

5.  Radiomics Signature: A Potential Biomarker for the Prediction of Disease-Free Survival in Early-Stage (I or II) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Yanqi Huang; Zaiyi Liu; Lan He; Xin Chen; Dan Pan; Zelan Ma; Cuishan Liang; Jie Tian; Changhong Liang
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Radiomic Machine-Learning Classifiers for Prognostic Biomarkers of Head and Neck Cancer.

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

7.  A comparative study of machine learning methods for time-to-event survival data for radiomics risk modelling.

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

8.  Investigation of radiomic signatures for local recurrence using primary tumor texture analysis in oropharyngeal head and neck cancer patients.

Authors: 
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methods.

Authors:  Patrick Royston; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach.

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

View more
  7 in total

1.  Radiomics analysis using stability selection supervised component analysis for right-censored survival data.

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

2.  THALIS: Human-Machine Analysis of Longitudinal Symptoms in Cancer Therapy.

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

3.  Predicting late symptoms of head and neck cancer treatment using LSTM and patient reported outcomes.

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

4.  Machine Learning for Head and Neck Cancer: A Safe Bet?-A Clinically Oriented Systematic Review for the Radiation Oncologist.

Authors:  Stefania Volpe; Matteo Pepa; Mattia Zaffaroni; Federica Bellerba; Riccardo Santamaria; Giulia Marvaso; Lars Johannes Isaksson; Sara Gandini; Anna Starzyńska; Maria Cristina Leonardi; Roberto Orecchia; Daniela Alterio; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Optimal Treatment Selection in Sequential Systemic and Locoregional Therapy of Oropharyngeal Squamous Carcinomas: Deep Q-Learning With a Patient-Physician Digital Twin Dyad.

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

6.  Prediction of the local treatment outcome in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma using deep learning analysis of pretreatment FDG-PET images.

Authors:  Noriyuki Fujima; V Carlota Andreu-Arasa; Sara K Meibom; Gustavo A Mercier; Minh Tam Truong; Kenji Hirata; Koichi Yasuda; Satoshi Kano; Akihiro Homma; Kohsuke Kudo; Osamu Sakai
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Oropharyngeal cancer patient stratification using random forest based-learning over high-dimensional radiomic features.

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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.