Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35192402›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2022

Predictive Modeling of Survival and Toxicity in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Radiotherapy.

Ibrahim Chamseddine, Yejin Kim, Brian De, Issam El Naqa, Dan G Duda, John Wolfgang, Jennifer Pursley, Harald Paganetti, Jennifer Wo, Theodore Hong and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. NRG Oncology White Paper on the Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ibrahim ChamseddineDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-7005-8692
Yejin KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-3416-1502
Brian DeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0003-3468-3359
Issam El NaqaDepartment of Machine Learning, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0001-6023-1132
Dan G DudaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0001-7065-8797
John WolfgangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Jennifer PursleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-0531-6798
Harald PaganettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Jennifer WoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Theodore HongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0001-8481-6581
Eugene J KoayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-7675-3461
Clemens GrassbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-4425-4489
Harvard University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USMoffitt Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Project 3: Enhanced Sensitivity of Tumors to Proton Beam Therapy: Mechanisms and Biomarkers.P01CA261669 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HONG, THEODORE S · 2021 to 2025
$14.0M
MDACC Clinical and Research Physics SupportU19CA021239 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI DELANEY, THOMAS F · 2014 to 2018
$11.2M
A Computational Method to Calculate the Radiation Dose to CirculatingLymphocytesR21CA248118 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GRASSBERGER, CLEMENS · 2020 to 2020
$429k
Bio-Physical Modeling of Immuno-Radiotherapy Combinations based on Patient DataR21CA241918 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GRASSBERGER, CLEMENS · 2019 to 2020
$399k
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA261669NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R21 CA241918NCI NIH HHS R21 CA248118NCI NIH HHS U19 CA021239
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo stratify patients and aid clinical decision making, we developed machine learning models to predict treatment failure and radiation-induced toxicities after radiotherapy (RT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma across institutions. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe models were developed using linear and nonlinear algorithms, predicting survival, nonlocal failure, radiation-induced liver disease, and lymphopenia from baseline patient and treatment parameters. The models were trained on 207 patients from Massachusetts General Hospital. Performance was quantified using Harrell's c-index, area under the curve (AUC), and accuracy in high-risk populations. Models' structures were optimized in a nested cross-validation approach to prevent overfitting. A study analysis plan was registered before external validation using 143 patients from MD Anderson Cancer Center. Clinical utility was assessed using net-benefit analysis.

resultsThe survival model stratified high-risk versus low-risk patients well in the external validation cohort (c-index = 0.75), better than existing risk scores. Predictions of 1-year survival and nonlocal failure were excellent (external AUC = 0.74 and 0.80, respectively), especially in the high-risk group (accuracy > 90%). Cause-of-death analysis showed differential modes of treatment failure in these cohorts and indicated that these models could be used to stratify RT patients for liver-sparing treatment regimen or combination approaches with systemic agents. Predictions of liver disease and lymphopenia were good but less robust (external AUC = 0.68 and 0.7, respectively), suggesting the need for more comprehensive consideration of dosimetry and better predictive biomarkers. The liver disease model showed excellent accuracy in the high-risk group (92%) and revealed possible interactions of platelet count with initial liver function.

conclusionMachine learning approaches can provide reliable outcome predictions in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after RT in diverse cohorts across institutions. The excellent performance, particularly in high-risk patients, suggests novel strategies for patient stratification and treatment selection.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsLymphopeniaHumansMachine LearningRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID35192402
PMCPMC8863122
OpenAlexW4212873785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.