11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Machine Learning Applications in Head and Neck Radiation Oncology: Lessons From Open-Source Radiomics Challenges

      research-article
      1 , * , 1 , 2 , 1 , 3 , 1 , 4 , 1 , 5 , 1 , 5 , 1 , 6 , 1 , 6 , 1 , 7 , 1 , 8 , 1 , 9 , 1 , 10 , 1 , 11 , 1 , 12 , 1 , 13 , 1 , 14 , 1 , 2 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 19 , 19 , 2 , 20 , 2 , 20 , 2 , 20 , 2 , 20 , 2 , 20 , 2 , 20 , 2 , 20 , 2 , 20 , 2 , 20 , 1 , 1 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 15 , 17 , 15 , 17 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 1 , 2 , 17 , *
      Frontiers in Oncology
      Frontiers Media S.A.
      machine learning, radiomics challenge, radiation oncology, head and neck, big data

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Radiomics leverages existing image datasets to provide non-visible data extraction via image post-processing, with the aim of identifying prognostic, and predictive imaging features at a sub-region of interest level. However, the application of radiomics is hampered by several challenges such as lack of image acquisition/analysis method standardization, impeding generalizability. As of yet, radiomics remains intriguing, but not clinically validated. We aimed to test the feasibility of a non-custom-constructed platform for disseminating existing large, standardized databases across institutions for promoting radiomics studies. Hence, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center organized two public radiomics challenges in head and neck radiation oncology domain. This was done in conjunction with MICCAI 2016 satellite symposium using Kaggle-in-Class, a machine-learning and predictive analytics platform. We drew on clinical data matched to radiomics data derived from diagnostic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images in a dataset of 315 patients with oropharyngeal cancer. Contestants were tasked to develop models for (i) classifying patients according to their human papillomavirus status, or (ii) predicting local tumor recurrence, following radiotherapy. Data were split into training, and test sets. Seventeen teams from various professional domains participated in one or both of the challenges. This review paper was based on the contestants' feedback; provided by 8 contestants only (47%). Six contestants (75%) incorporated extracted radiomics features into their predictive model building, either alone ( n = 5; 62.5%), as was the case with the winner of the “HPV” challenge, or in conjunction with matched clinical attributes ( n = 2; 25%). Only 23% of contestants, notably, including the winner of the “local recurrence” challenge, built their model relying solely on clinical data. In addition to the value of the integration of machine learning into clinical decision-making, our experience sheds light on challenges in sharing and directing existing datasets toward clinical applications of radiomics, including hyper-dimensionality of the clinical/imaging data attributes. Our experience may help guide researchers to create a framework for sharing and reuse of already published data that we believe will ultimately accelerate the pace of clinical applications of radiomics; both in challenge or clinical settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

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

          Purpose To develop a radiomics signature to estimate disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with early-stage (stage I-II) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and assess its incremental value to the traditional staging system and clinical-pathologic risk factors for individual DFS estimation. Materials and Methods Ethical approval by the institutional review board was obtained for this retrospective analysis, and the need to obtain informed consent was waived. This study consisted of 282 consecutive patients with stage IA-IIB NSCLC. A radiomics signature was generated by using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, or LASSO, Cox regression model. Association between the radiomics signature and DFS was explored. Further validation of the radiomics signature as an independent biomarker was performed by using multivariate Cox regression. A radiomics nomogram with the radiomics signature incorporated was constructed to demonstrate the incremental value of the radiomics signature to the traditional staging system and other clinical-pathologic risk factors for individualized DFS estimation, which was then assessed with respect to calibration, discrimination, reclassification, and clinical usefulness. Results The radiomics signature was significantly associated with DFS, independent of clinical-pathologic risk factors. Incorporating the radiomics signature into the radiomics-based nomogram resulted in better performance (P < .0001) for the estimation of DFS (C-index: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.73) than with the clinical-pathologic nomogram (C-index: 0.691; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.70), as well as a better calibration and improved accuracy of the classification of survival outcomes (net reclassification improvement: 0.182; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.31; P = .02). Decision curve analysis demonstrated that in terms of clinical usefulness, the radiomics nomogram outperformed the traditional staging system and the clinical-pathologic nomogram. Conclusion The radiomics signature is an independent biomarker for the estimation of DFS in patients with early-stage NSCLC. Combination of the radiomics signature, traditional staging system, and other clinical-pathologic risk factors performed better for individualized DFS estimation in patients with early-stage NSCLC, which might enable a step forward precise medicine. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities

            This study aims at developing a joint FDG-PET and MRI texture-based model for the early evaluation of lung metastasis risk in soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs). We investigate if the creation of new composite textures from the combination of FDG-PET and MR imaging information could better identify aggressive tumours. Towards this goal, a cohort of 51 patients with histologically proven STSs of the extremities was retrospectively evaluated. All patients had pre-treatment FDG-PET and MRI scans comprised of T1-weighted and T2-weighted fat-suppression sequences (T2FS). Nine non-texture features (SUV metrics and shape features) and forty-one texture features were extracted from the tumour region of separate (FDG-PET, T1 and T2FS) and fused (FDG-PET/T1 and FDG-PET/T2FS) scans. Volume fusion of the FDG-PET and MRI scans was implemented using the wavelet transform. The influence of six different extraction parameters on the predictive value of textures was investigated. The incorporation of features into multivariable models was performed using logistic regression. The multivariable modeling strategy involved imbalance-adjusted bootstrap resampling in the following four steps leading to final prediction model construction: (1) feature set reduction; (2) feature selection; (3) prediction performance estimation; and (4) computation of model coefficients. Univariate analysis showed that the isotropic voxel size at which texture features were extracted had the most impact on predictive value. In multivariable analysis, texture features extracted from fused scans significantly outperformed those from separate scans in terms of lung metastases prediction estimates. The best performance was obtained using a combination of four texture features extracted from FDG-PET/T1 and FDG-PET/T2FS scans. This model reached an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.984 ± 0.002, a sensitivity of 0.955 ± 0.006, and a specificity of 0.926 ± 0.004 in bootstrapping evaluations. Ultimately, lung metastasis risk assessment at diagnosis of STSs could improve patient outcomes by allowing better treatment adaptation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measuring Computed Tomography Scanner Variability of Radiomics Features.

              The purpose of this study was to determine the significance of interscanner variability in CT image radiomics studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Oncol
                Front Oncol
                Front. Oncol.
                Frontiers in Oncology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2234-943X
                17 August 2018
                2018
                : 8
                : 294
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center , Houston, TX, United States
                [2] 2Baylor College of Medicine , Houston, TX, United States
                [3] 3Università degli Studi di Milano , Milan, Italy
                [4] 4Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Alexandria University , Alexandria, Egypt
                [5] 5McGovern Medical School, University of Texas , Houston, TX, United States
                [6] 6School of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio , San Antonio, TX, United States
                [7] 7Department of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, United States
                [8] 8Furman University , Greenville, SC, United States
                [9] 9Abilene Christian University , Abilene, TX, United States
                [10] 10Department of Radiation Oncology, Oregon Health and Science University , Portland, OR, United States
                [11] 11Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , New York, NY, United States
                [12] 12Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso , El Paso, TX, United States
                [13] 13University of North Texas Health Science Center , Fort Worth, TX, United States
                [14] 14Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland, OH, United States
                [15] 15Colgate University , Hamilton City, CA, United States
                [16] 16Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, MD Anderson Cancer Center , Houston, TX, United States
                [17] 17Department of Radiation Physics, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, MD Anderson Cancer Center , Houston, TX, United States
                [18] 18Moores Cancer Center, University of California , La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States
                [19] 19Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e delle Tecnologie dell'Informazione, Università Degli Studi di Napoli Federico II , Naples, Italy
                [20] 20Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center , Houston, TX, United States
                [21] 21Fraunhofer-Institut für Fabrikbetrieb und Automatisierung (IFF) , Magdeburg, Germany
                [22] 22Department of Computer Science, University of Southern Maine , Portland, OR, United States
                [23] 23Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad , Sangareddy, India
                [24] 24University of Iowa , Iowa City, IA, United States
                [25] 25University of Illinois at Chicago , Chicago, IL, United States
                [26] 26Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, United States
                [27] 27Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center , Houston, TX, United States
                [28] 28Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc. , Frederick, MD, United States
                [29] 29National Cancer Institute , Rockville, MD, United States
                [30] 30The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins Medicine , Baltimore, MD, United States
                [31] 31Department of Radiology and Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, MGH/Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Issam El Naqa, University of Michigan, United States

                Reviewed by: Marta Bogowicz, UniversitätsSpital Zürich, Switzerland; Mary Feng, University of California, San Francisco, United States

                *Correspondence: Hesham Elhalawani hmelhalawani@ 123456mdanderson.org

                This article was submitted to Radiation Oncology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Article
                10.3389/fonc.2018.00294
                6107800
                30175071
                19ab5819-eabe-40e9-9b38-0223201239f0
                Copyright © 2018 Elhalawani, Lin, Volpe, Mohamed, White, Zafereo, Wong, Berends, AboHashem,Williams, Aymard, Kanwar, Perni, Rock, Cooksey, Campbell, Yang, Nguyen, Ger, Cardenas, Fave, Sansone, Piantadosi, Marrone, Liu, Huang, Yu, Li, Yu, Zhang, Zhu, Morris, Baladandayuthapani, Shumway, Ghosh, Pöhlmann, Phoulady, Goyal, Canahuate, Marai, Vock, Lai, Mackin, Court, Freymann, Farahani, Kaplathy-Cramer and Fuller.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 26 January 2018
                : 16 July 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 41, Pages: 11, Words: 8404
                Categories
                Oncology
                Original Research

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                machine learning,radiomics challenge,radiation oncology,head and neck,big data

                Comments

                Comment on this article