Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 6;14(19):4889.
doi: 10.3390/cancers14194889.

Lung Subregion Partitioning by Incremental Dose Intervals Improves Omics-Based Prediction for Acute Radiation Pneumonitis in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients

Affiliations

Lung Subregion Partitioning by Incremental Dose Intervals Improves Omics-Based Prediction for Acute Radiation Pneumonitis in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients

Bing Li et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of features obtained from our proposed incremental-dose-interval-based lung subregion segmentation (IDLSS) for predicting grade ≥ 2 acute radiation pneumonitis (ARP) in lung cancer patients upon intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). (1) Materials and Methods: A total of 126 non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Five lung subregions (SRs) were generated by the intersection of the whole lung (WL) and five sub-regions receiving incremental dose intervals. A total of 4610 radiomics features (RF) from pre-treatment planning computed tomographic (CT) and 213 dosiomics features (DF) were extracted. Six feature groups, including WL-RF, WL-DF, SR-RF, SR-DF, and the combined feature sets of WL-RDF and SR-RDF, were generated. Features were selected by using a variance threshold, followed by a Student t-test. Pearson’s correlation test was applied to remove redundant features. Subsequently, Ridge regression was adopted to develop six models for ARP using the six feature groups. Thirty iterations of resampling were implemented to assess overall model performance by using the area under the Receiver-Operating-Characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. (2) Results: The SR-RDF model achieved the best classification performance and provided significantly better predictability than the WL-RDF model in training cohort (Average AUC: 0.98 ± 0.01 vs. 0.90 ± 0.02, p < 0.001) and testing cohort (Average AUC: 0.88 ± 0.05 vs. 0.80 ± 0.04, p < 0.001). Similarly, predictability of the SR-DF model was significantly stronger than that of the WL-DF model in training cohort (Average AUC: 0.88 ± 0.03 vs. 0.70 ± 0.030, p < 0.001) and in testing cohort (Average AUC: 0.74 ± 0.08 vs. 0.65 ± 0.06, p < 0.001). By contrast, the SR-RF model significantly outperformed the WL-RF model only in the training set (Average AUC: 0.93 ± 0.02 vs. 0.85 ± 0.03, p < 0.001), but not in the testing set (Average AUC: 0.79 ± 0.05 vs. 0.77 ± 0.07, p = 0.13). (3) Conclusions: Our results demonstrated that the IDLSS method improved model performance for classifying ARP with grade ≥ 2 when using dosiomics or combined radiomics-dosiomics features.

Keywords: dosiomics; multi-omics; radiation pneumonitis; radiomics; radiotherapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The overall workflow of the model construction. (a) collection of the clinical records and RT data, including pre-treatment CT images, planning dose distributions, and lung contours; (b) extraction of radiomics features (RF) and dosiomics features (DF), including DVH parameters using the planning CT image and RT dose distribution; (c) feature selection; (d) model construction; (e) model performance evaluation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) An illustration lung subregion segmentation of 10–20 Gy. (b) The whole lung and the five lung subregions with dose intervals of 0–10 Gy, 20–30 Gy, 30–40 Gy, and 40–50 Gy of one example patient.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The flowchart of (a) classification model construction and (b) feature selection.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The model performance comparison between the models using subregion features and the whole lung features, i.e., SR-DF vs. WL-DF, SR-RF vs. WL-RF, and SR-RDF vs. WL-RDF, in the train and test AUCs. * p < 0.001.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ferlay J., Colombet M., Soerjomataram I., Parkin D.M., Piñeros M., Znaor A., Bray F. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview. Int. J. Cancer. 2021;149:778–789. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33588. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schild S.E. Optimizing the Radiotherapy of Lung Cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2020;15:1559–1560. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.07.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vinod S.K., Hau E. Radiotherapy treatment for lung cancer: Current status and future directions. Respirology. 2020;25:61–71. doi: 10.1111/resp.13870. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yang W.-C., Hsu F.-M., Yang P.-C. Precision radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. J. Biomed. Sci. 2020;27:82. doi: 10.1186/s12929-020-00676-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baisden J.M., Romney D.A., Reish A.G., Cai J., Sheng K., Jones D.R., Benedict S.H., Read P.W., Larner J.M. Dose as a function of lung volume and planned treatment volume in helical tomotherapy intensity-modulated radiation therapy-based stereotactic body radiation therapy for small lung tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2007;68:1229–1237. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.03.024. - DOI - PubMed