RESUMO
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stability of dosiomic features under random interfractional error. We investigated the differences in the values of features with different fractions and the error in the values of dosiomic features under interfractional error. Material and Methods: The isocenters of the treatment plans of 15 lung cancer patients were translated by a maximum of ±3 mm in each axis with a mean of (0, 0, 0) and a standard deviation of (1.2, 1.2, 1.2) mm in the x, y, and z directions for each fraction. A total of 81 dose distributions for each patient were then calculated considering four fraction number groups (2, 10, 20, and 30). A total of 93 dosiomic features were extracted from each dose distribution in four different regions of interest (ROIs): gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), heart, and both lungs. The stability of dosiomic features was analyzed for each fraction number group by the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The agreements in the means of dosiomic features among the four fraction number groups were tested by ICC. The percent differences (PD) between the dosiomic features extracted from the original dose distribution and the dosiomic features extracted from the dose distribution with interfractional error were calculated. Results: Eleven out of 93 dosiomic features demonstrated a large CV (CV ≥ 20%). Overall CV values were highest in GTV ROIs and lowest in lung ROIs. The stability of dosiomic features decreased as the total number of fractions decreased. The ICC results showed that five out of 93 dosiomic features had an ICC lower than 0.75, which indicates intermediate or poor stability under interfractional error. The mean dosiomic feature values were shown to be consistent with different numbers of fractions (ICC ≥ 0.9). Some of the dosiomic features had PD greater than 50% and showed different PD values with different numbers of fractions. Conclusion: Some dosiomic features have low stability under interfractional error. The stability and values of the dosiomic features were affected by the total number of fractions. The effect of interfractional error on dosiomic features should be considered in further studies regarding dosiomics for reproducible results.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim was to investigate the advantages of dosiomic and radiomic features over traditional dose-volume histogram (DVH) features for predicting the development of radiation pneumonitis (RP), to validate the generalizability of dosiomic and radiomic features by using features selected from an esophageal cancer dataset and to use these features with a lung cancer dataset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dataset containing 101 patients with esophageal cancer and 93 patients with lung cancer was included in this study. DVH and dosiomic features were extracted from 3D dose distributions. Radiomic features were extracted from pretreatment CT images. Feature selection was performed using only the esophageal cancer dataset. Four predictive models for RP (DVH, dosiomic, radiomic and dosiomic + radiomic models) were compared on the esophageal cancer dataset. We further used a lung cancer dataset for the external validation of the selected dosiomic and radiomic features from the esophageal cancer dataset. The performance of the predictive models was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROCAUC) and the AUC of the precision recall curve (PRAUC) metrics. RESULT: The ROCAUCs and PRAUCs of the DVH, dosiomic, radiomic and dosiomic + radiomic models on esophageal cancer dataset were 0.67 ± 0.11 and 0.75 ± 0.10, 0.71 ± 0.10 and 0.77 ± 0.09, 0.71 ± 0.11 and 0.79 ± 0.09, and 0.75 ± 0.10 and 0.81 ± 0.09, respectively. The predictive performance of the dosiomic- and radiomic-based models was significantly higher than that of the DVH-based model with respect to esophageal cancer. The ROCAUCs and PRAUCs of the DVH, dosiomic, radiomic and dosiomic + radiomic models on the lung cancer dataset were 0.64 ± 0.18 and 0.37 ± 0.20, 0.67 ± 0.17 and 0.37 ± 0.20, 0.67 ± 0.16 and 0.45 ± 0.23, and 0.68 ± 0.16 and 0.44 ± 0.22, respectively. On the lung cancer dataset, the predictive performance of the radiomic and dosiomic + radiomic models was significantly higher than that of the DVH-based model. However, the PRAUC of the dosiomic-based model showed no significant difference relative to the corresponding RP prediction performance on the lung cancer dataset. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that dosiomic and CT radiomic features could improve RP prediction in thoracic radiotherapy. Dosiomic and radiomic feature knowledge might be transferrable from esophageal cancer to lung cancer.
