Bin Lou1, Semihcan Doken2, Tingliang Zhuang3, Danielle Wingerter2, Mishka Gidwani2, Nilesh Mistry3, Lance Ladic1, Ali Kamen1, Mohamed E Abazeed2,4. 1. 755 College Road East, Digital Technology and Innovation Division, Siemens Healthineers, Princeton, NJ, 08540. 2. 2111 East 96th St/NE-6, Department of Translational Hematology Oncology Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195. 3. 40 Liberty Blvd, Diagnostic Imaging Computed Tomography, Siemens Healthineers, Malvern, PA 19355. 4. 10201 Carnegie Ave/CA-5, Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195.
Abstract
Background: Radiotherapy continues to be delivered uniformly without consideration of individual tumor characteristics. To advance toward more precise treatments in radiotherapy, we queried the lung computed tomography (CT)-derived feature space to identify radiation sensitivity parameters that can predict treatment failure and hence guide the individualization of radiotherapy dose. Methods: We used a cohort-based registry of 849 patients with cancer in the lung treated with high dose radiotherapy using stereotactic body radiotherapy. We input pre-therapy lung CT images into a multi-task deep neural network, Deep Profiler, to generate an image fingerprint that primarily predicts time to event treatment outcomes and secondarily approximates classical radiomic features. We validated our findings in an independent study population (n = 95). Deep Profiler was combined with clinical variables to derive iGray, an individualized dose that estimates treatment failure probability to be <5%. Findings: Radiation treatments in patients with high Deep Profiler scores fail at a significantly higher rate than in those with low scores. The 3-year cumulative incidences of local failure were 20.3% (95% CI: 16.0-24.9) and 5.7% (95% CI: 3.5-8.8), respectively. Deep Profiler independently predicted local failure (hazard ratio 1.65, 95% 1.02-2.66, p = 0.04). Models that included Deep Profiler and clinical variables predicted treatment failures with a concordance index of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67-0.77), a significant improvement compared to classical radiomics or clinical variables alone (p = <0.001 and <0.001, respectively). Deep Profiler performed well in an external study population (n = 95), accurately predicting treatment failures across diverse clinical settings and CT scanner types (concordance index = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.69-0.92]). iGray had a wide dose range (21.1-277 Gy, BED), suggested dose reductions in 23.3% of patients and can be safely delivered in the majority of cases. Interpretation: Our results indicate that there are image-distinct subpopulations that have differential sensitivity to radiotherapy. The image-based deep learning framework proposed herein is the first opportunity to use medical images to individualize radiotherapy dose.
Background: Radiotherapy continues to be delivered uniformly without consideration of individual tumor characteristics. To advance toward more precise treatments in radiotherapy, we queried the lung computed tomography (CT)-derived feature space to identify radiation sensitivity parameters that can predict treatment failure and hence guide the individualization of radiotherapy dose. Methods: We used a cohort-based registry of 849 patients with cancer in the lung treated with high dose radiotherapy using stereotactic body radiotherapy. We input pre-therapy lung CT images into a multi-task deep neural network, Deep Profiler, to generate an image fingerprint that primarily predicts time to event treatment outcomes and secondarily approximates classical radiomic features. We validated our findings in an independent study population (n = 95). Deep Profiler was combined with clinical variables to derive iGray, an individualized dose that estimates treatment failure probability to be <5%. Findings: Radiation treatments in patients with high Deep Profiler scores fail at a significantly higher rate than in those with low scores. The 3-year cumulative incidences of local failure were 20.3% (95% CI: 16.0-24.9) and 5.7% (95% CI: 3.5-8.8), respectively. Deep Profiler independently predicted local failure (hazard ratio 1.65, 95% 1.02-2.66, p = 0.04). Models that included Deep Profiler and clinical variables predicted treatment failures with a concordance index of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67-0.77), a significant improvement compared to classical radiomics or clinical variables alone (p = <0.001 and <0.001, respectively). Deep Profiler performed well in an external study population (n = 95), accurately predicting treatment failures across diverse clinical settings and CT scanner types (concordance index = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.69-0.92]). iGray had a wide dose range (21.1-277 Gy, BED), suggested dose reductions in 23.3% of patients and can be safely delivered in the majority of cases. Interpretation: Our results indicate that there are image-distinct subpopulations that have differential sensitivity to radiotherapy. The image-based deep learning framework proposed herein is the first opportunity to use medical images to individualize radiotherapy dose.
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas P A Debray; Yvonne Vergouwe; Hendrik Koffijberg; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: John N Weinstein; Eric A Collisson; Gordon B Mills; Kenna R Mills Shaw; Brad A Ozenberger; Kyle Ellrott; Ilya Shmulevich; Chris Sander; Joshua M Stuart Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Patrick Granton; Catharina M L Zegers; Robert Gillies; Ronald Boellard; André Dekker; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Zishan Allibhai; Mojgan Taremi; Andrea Bezjak; Anthony Brade; Andrew J Hope; Alexander Sun; B C John Cho Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Paul Burton; Julia Isaeva; Amadou Gaye; Andrew Turner; Madeleine J Murtagh; Susan Wallace; Vincent Ferretti; Jennifer R Harris Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 2.000
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: Elizabeth Huynh; Ahmed Hosny; Christian Guthier; Danielle S Bitterman; Steven F Petit; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Benjamin Kann; Hugo J W L Aerts; Raymond H Mak Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Jacob G Scott; Geoff Sedor; Jessica A Scarborough; Michael W Kattan; Jeffrey Peacock; G Daniel Grass; Eric A Mellon; Ram Thapa; Michael Schell; Anthony Waller; Sean Poppen; George Andl; Jamie K Teer; Steven A Eschrich; Thomas J Dilling; William S Dalton; Louis B Harrison; Tim Fox; Javier F Torres-Roca Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Radouane El Ayachy; Nicolas Giraud; Paul Giraud; Catherine Durdux; Philippe Giraud; Anita Burgun; Jean Emmanuel Bibault Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; May Abdel-Wahab; Rifat Atun; Miriam Mikhail Lette; Diana Paez; James A Brink; Lluís Donoso-Bach; Guy Frija; Monika Hierath; Ola Holmberg; Pek-Lan Khong; Jason S Lewis; Geraldine McGinty; Wim J G Oyen; Lawrence N Shulman; Zachary J Ward; Andrew M Scott Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 41.316