Automated clinical decision support system with deep learning dose prediction and NTCP models to evaluate treatment complications in patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate how accurate our deep learning (DL) dose prediction models for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatments, when chained with normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, are at identifying esophageal cancer patients who are at high risk of toxicity and should be switched to proton therapy (PT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two U-Net were created, for photon (XT) and proton (PT) plans, respectively. To estimate the dose distribution for each patient, they were trained on a database of 40 uniformly planned patients using cross validation and a circulating test set. These models were combined with a NTCP model for postoperative pulmonary complications. The NTCP model used the mean lung dose, age, histology type, and body mass index as predicting variables. The treatment choice is then done by using a ΔNTCP threshold between XT and PT plans. Patients with ΔNTCP ≥ 10% were referred to PT. RESULTS: Our DL models succeed in predicting dose distributions with a mean error on the mean dose to the lungs (MLD) of 1.14 ± 0.93% for XT and 0.66 ± 0.48% for PT. The complete automated workflow (DL chained with NTCP) achieved 100% accuracy in patient referral. The average residual (ΔNTCP ground truth - ΔNTCP predicted) is 1.43 ± 1.49%. CONCLUSION: This study evaluates our DL dose prediction models in a broader patient referral context and demonstrates their ability to support clinical decisions.

Towards a safe and efficient clinical implementation of machine learning in radiation oncology by exploring model interpretability, explainability and data-model dependency.

The interest in machine learning (ML) has grown tremendously in recent years, partly due to the performance leap that occurred with new techniques of deep learning, convolutional neural networks for images, increased computational power, and wider availability of large datasets. Most fields of medicine follow that popular trend and, notably, radiation oncology is one of those that are at the forefront, with already a long tradition in using digital images and fully computerized workflows. ML models are driven by data, and in contrast with many statistical or physical models, they can be very large and complex, with countless generic parameters. This inevitably raises two questions, namely, the tight dependence between the models and the datasets that feed them, and the interpretability of the models, which scales with its complexity. Any problems in the data used to train the model will be later reflected in their performance. This, together with the low interpretability of ML models, makes their implementation into the clinical workflow particularly difficult. Building tools for risk assessment and quality assurance of ML models must involve then two main points: interpretability and data-model dependency. After a joint introduction of both radiation oncology and ML, this paper reviews the main risks and current solutions when applying the latter to workflows in the former. Risks associated with data and models, as well as their interaction, are detailed. Next, the core concepts of interpretability, explainability, and data-model dependency are formally defined and illustrated with examples. Afterwards, a broad discussion goes through key applications of ML in workflows of radiation oncology as well as vendors' perspectives for the clinical implementation of ML.