Cargando…

Feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left‐sided whole breast radiotherapy: DIBH or prone

The deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and prone (P) position are two common heart‐sparing techniques for external‐beam radiation treatment of left‐sided breast cancer patients. Clinicians select the position that is deemed to be better for tissue sparing based on their experience. This approach, h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, Hui, Liu, Tianyu, Shi, Chengyu, Petillion, Saskia, Kindts, Isabelle, Weltens, Caroline, Depuydt, Tom, Song, Yulin, Saleh, Ziad, Xu, Xie George, Tang, Xiaoli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5849849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29436168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12283
_version_ 1783306118310658048
author Lin, Hui
Liu, Tianyu
Shi, Chengyu
Petillion, Saskia
Kindts, Isabelle
Weltens, Caroline
Depuydt, Tom
Song, Yulin
Saleh, Ziad
Xu, Xie George
Tang, Xiaoli
author_facet Lin, Hui
Liu, Tianyu
Shi, Chengyu
Petillion, Saskia
Kindts, Isabelle
Weltens, Caroline
Depuydt, Tom
Song, Yulin
Saleh, Ziad
Xu, Xie George
Tang, Xiaoli
author_sort Lin, Hui
collection PubMed
description The deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and prone (P) position are two common heart‐sparing techniques for external‐beam radiation treatment of left‐sided breast cancer patients. Clinicians select the position that is deemed to be better for tissue sparing based on their experience. This approach, however, is not always optimum and consistent. In response to this, we develop a quantitative tool that predicts the optimal positioning for the sake of organs at risk (OAR) sparing. Sixteen left‐sided breast cancer patients were considered in the study, each received CT scans in the supine free breathing, supine DIBH, and prone positions. Treatment plans were generated for all positions. A patient was classified as DIBH or P using two different criteria: if that position yielded (1) lower heart dose, or (2) lower weighted OAR dose. Ten anatomical features were extracted from each patient's data, followed by the principal component analysis. Sequential forward feature selection was implemented to identify features that give the best classification performance. Nine statistical models were then applied to predict the optimal positioning and were evaluated using stratified k‐fold cross‐validation, predictive accuracy and receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). For heart toxicity‐based classification, the support vector machine with radial basis function kernel yielded the highest accuracy (0.88) and AUROC (0.80). For OAR overall toxicities‐based classification, the quadratic discriminant analysis achieved the highest accuracy (0.90) and AUROC (0.84). For heart toxicity‐based classification, Breast volume and the distance between Heart and Breast were the most frequently selected features. For OAR overall toxicities‐based classification, Heart volume, Breast volume and the distance between ipsilateral lung and breast were frequently selected. Given the patient data considered in this study, the proposed statistical model is feasible to provide predictions for DIBH and prone position selection as well as indicate important clinical features that affect the position selection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5849849
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58498492018-04-02 Feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left‐sided whole breast radiotherapy: DIBH or prone Lin, Hui Liu, Tianyu Shi, Chengyu Petillion, Saskia Kindts, Isabelle Weltens, Caroline Depuydt, Tom Song, Yulin Saleh, Ziad Xu, Xie George Tang, Xiaoli J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and prone (P) position are two common heart‐sparing techniques for external‐beam radiation treatment of left‐sided breast cancer patients. Clinicians select the position that is deemed to be better for tissue sparing based on their experience. This approach, however, is not always optimum and consistent. In response to this, we develop a quantitative tool that predicts the optimal positioning for the sake of organs at risk (OAR) sparing. Sixteen left‐sided breast cancer patients were considered in the study, each received CT scans in the supine free breathing, supine DIBH, and prone positions. Treatment plans were generated for all positions. A patient was classified as DIBH or P using two different criteria: if that position yielded (1) lower heart dose, or (2) lower weighted OAR dose. Ten anatomical features were extracted from each patient's data, followed by the principal component analysis. Sequential forward feature selection was implemented to identify features that give the best classification performance. Nine statistical models were then applied to predict the optimal positioning and were evaluated using stratified k‐fold cross‐validation, predictive accuracy and receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). For heart toxicity‐based classification, the support vector machine with radial basis function kernel yielded the highest accuracy (0.88) and AUROC (0.80). For OAR overall toxicities‐based classification, the quadratic discriminant analysis achieved the highest accuracy (0.90) and AUROC (0.84). For heart toxicity‐based classification, Breast volume and the distance between Heart and Breast were the most frequently selected features. For OAR overall toxicities‐based classification, Heart volume, Breast volume and the distance between ipsilateral lung and breast were frequently selected. Given the patient data considered in this study, the proposed statistical model is feasible to provide predictions for DIBH and prone position selection as well as indicate important clinical features that affect the position selection. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5849849/ /pubmed/29436168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12283 Text en © 2018 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Lin, Hui
Liu, Tianyu
Shi, Chengyu
Petillion, Saskia
Kindts, Isabelle
Weltens, Caroline
Depuydt, Tom
Song, Yulin
Saleh, Ziad
Xu, Xie George
Tang, Xiaoli
Feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left‐sided whole breast radiotherapy: DIBH or prone
title Feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left‐sided whole breast radiotherapy: DIBH or prone
title_full Feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left‐sided whole breast radiotherapy: DIBH or prone
title_fullStr Feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left‐sided whole breast radiotherapy: DIBH or prone
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left‐sided whole breast radiotherapy: DIBH or prone
title_short Feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left‐sided whole breast radiotherapy: DIBH or prone
title_sort feasibility study of individualized optimal positioning selection for left‐sided whole breast radiotherapy: dibh or prone
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5849849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29436168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12283
work_keys_str_mv AT linhui feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT liutianyu feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT shichengyu feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT petillionsaskia feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT kindtsisabelle feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT weltenscaroline feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT depuydttom feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT songyulin feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT salehziad feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT xuxiegeorge feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone
AT tangxiaoli feasibilitystudyofindividualizedoptimalpositioningselectionforleftsidedwholebreastradiotherapydibhorprone