Cargando…

Impact of Interfractional Error on Dosiomic Features

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 AN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Puttanawarut, Chanon, Sirirutbunkajorn, Nat, Tawong, Narisara, Khachonkham, Suphalak, Pattaranutaporn, Poompis, Wongsawat, Yodchanan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9231355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35756677
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.726896
_version_ 1784735318356787200
author Puttanawarut, Chanon
Sirirutbunkajorn, Nat
Tawong, Narisara
Khachonkham, Suphalak
Pattaranutaporn, Poompis
Wongsawat, Yodchanan
author_facet Puttanawarut, Chanon
Sirirutbunkajorn, Nat
Tawong, Narisara
Khachonkham, Suphalak
Pattaranutaporn, Poompis
Wongsawat, Yodchanan
author_sort Puttanawarut, Chanon
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9231355
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92313552022-06-25 Impact of Interfractional Error on Dosiomic Features Puttanawarut, Chanon Sirirutbunkajorn, Nat Tawong, Narisara Khachonkham, Suphalak Pattaranutaporn, Poompis Wongsawat, Yodchanan Front Oncol Oncology 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9231355/ /pubmed/35756677 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.726896 Text en Copyright © 2022 Puttanawarut, Sirirutbunkajorn, Tawong, Khachonkham, Pattaranutaporn and Wongsawat https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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.
spellingShingle Oncology
Puttanawarut, Chanon
Sirirutbunkajorn, Nat
Tawong, Narisara
Khachonkham, Suphalak
Pattaranutaporn, Poompis
Wongsawat, Yodchanan
Impact of Interfractional Error on Dosiomic Features
title Impact of Interfractional Error on Dosiomic Features
title_full Impact of Interfractional Error on Dosiomic Features
title_fullStr Impact of Interfractional Error on Dosiomic Features
title_full_unstemmed Impact of Interfractional Error on Dosiomic Features
title_short Impact of Interfractional Error on Dosiomic Features
title_sort impact of interfractional error on dosiomic features
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9231355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35756677
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.726896
work_keys_str_mv AT puttanawarutchanon impactofinterfractionalerrorondosiomicfeatures
AT sirirutbunkajornnat impactofinterfractionalerrorondosiomicfeatures
AT tawongnarisara impactofinterfractionalerrorondosiomicfeatures
AT khachonkhamsuphalak impactofinterfractionalerrorondosiomicfeatures
AT pattaranutapornpoompis impactofinterfractionalerrorondosiomicfeatures
AT wongsawatyodchanan impactofinterfractionalerrorondosiomicfeatures