RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Artificial intelligence (AI) seems to be bridging the gap between the acquisition of data and its meaningful interpretation. These approaches, have shown outstanding capabilities, outperforming most classification and regression methods to date and the ability to automatically learn the most suitable data representation for the task at hand and present it for better correlation. This article tries to sensitize the practising radiation oncologists to understand where the potential role of AI lies and what further can be achieved with it. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Contemporary literature was searched and the available literature was sorted and an attempt at writing a comprehensive non-systematic review was made. RESULTS: The article addresses various areas in oncology, especially in the field of radiation oncology, where the work based on AI has been done. Whether it's the screening modalities, or diagnosis or the prognostic assays, AI has come with more accurately defining results and survival of patients. Various steps and protocols in radiation oncology are now using AI-based methods, like in the steps of planning, segmentation and delivery of radiation. Benefit of AI across all the platforms of health sector may lead to a more refined and personalized medicine in near future. CONCLUSION: AI with the use of machine learning and artificial neural networks has come up with faster and more accurate solutions for the problems faced by oncologist. The uses of AI,are likely to get increased exponentially . However, concerns regarding demographic discrepancies in relation to patients, disease and their natural history and reports of manipulation of AI, the ultimate responsibility will rest on the treating physicians.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Chemoradiation (CRT) is the standard of care in anal canal carcinoma. CRT leads to suppression of iliac bone marrow (BM) leading to hematological toxicity. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique can be used to decrease radiation dose to iliac BM and thus decrease haematological toxicity. This study aims to compare the haematological and gastrointestinal toxicity in BM sparing IMRT with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in anal carcinoma patients. METHODS: Twenty untreated, biopsy proven anal canal carcinoma (stages I-III) patients were randomized into IMRT and 3DCRT arm. All patients received CRT with 45 Gy in 25 fractions at 1.8 Gy/fraction and weekly concurrent inj. cisplatin and 5-FU. Patients were evaluated for acute haematological and gastrointestinal toxicity during treatment. Additional dosimetric comparison was made between the two groups. RESULTS: Incidence of worst hematological toxicity grade II (GII) and GIII was seen in 40% [4] vs. 30% [3] and 20% [2] vs. 0% [0] respectively, in 3DCRT and IMRT group. However these did not come as statistically significant (P=0.228). Incidence of worst gastrointestinal toxicity during treatment in terms of GII was 30% [3] vs. 50% [5] and GIII was 60% [6] vs. 0% [0] in 3DCRT and IMRT group respectively (P=0.010). Other parameters indicating better tolerance of treatment with IMRT arm than 3DCRT arm were lesser need for administration of parenteral fluid 10% [1] vs. 60% [6] (P=0.019); lesser need for blood transfusion 0% [0] vs. 20% [2] (P=0.060) in IMRT arm than in 3DCRT arm respectively. Patient requiring supportive care during treatment like need for anti-motility drugs and WHO. Step II analgesics also favored IMRT arm. Overall treatment time for Arm B (33.40 days) was less than what was seen in Arm A patients (36.8 days), although difference was not statistically significant (P=0.569). In terms of dosimetric analysis, arm B with the use of IMRT showed superiority over arm A with 3DCRT. The mean volume of bladder receiving ≥30 and 40 Gy respectively was 100% and 96% for group A (3DCRT) as compared to 68% and 31% for the group B (IMRT) (P<0.05). For bowel, although, the V30 and V40 for 3DCRT versus IMRT respectively were 51% and 27% vs. 27% and 13%, statistical significance was not reached (P>0.05). There was also less mean BM receiving ≥10 Gy (80.4%) and ≥20 Gy (65.6%) for group B using IMRT, than in 3DCRT (group A) were it was 91% and 73% respectively. Although for V10 it was significant (P=0.04), it did not reach statistical significance for the V20 (P=0.550). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary outcomes suggest that BM sparing IMRT for anal canal cancers can decrease both haematological and gastrointestinal toxicity as compared to 3DCRT and thus CRT course can be completed effectively without treatment breaks.
