ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Stability of dosiomic features against variations in dose calculation: An analysis based on a cohort of prostate external beam radiotherapy patients.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Variability of Dosiomics Features with Varying Prescribed Dose in Prostate Cancer.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2026Article
- Computed Tomography-Based Radiomics Prediction of Biochemical Failure and Distant Metastasis in Patients With High- and Very High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a prediction model based on two-dimensional dose distribution maps fused with computed tomography images for noninvasive prediction of radiochemotherapy resistance in non-small cell lung cancer.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- A dosiomics model for prediction of radiation-induced acute skin toxicity in breast cancer patients: machine learning-based study for a closed bore linac.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Dosiomics for intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer: survival analysis stratified by baseline prostate-specific antigen and Gleason grade group in a 2-institutional retrospective study.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Prediction of patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy using radiomics-based machine learning with dose distribution.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Stability of dosiomic features against variations in dose calculation: An analysis based on a cohort of prostate external beam radiotherapy patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Comparison of Dosiomics Features and Dosimetric Parameters for Detecting Variations in Dose Distribution in Breast Cancer Radiotherapy.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInterest in using higher order features of the planned 3D dose distributions (i.e., dosiomics) to predict radiotherapy outcomes is growing. This is driving many retrospective studies where historical data are mined to train machine learning models; however, recent decades have seen considerable advances in dose calculation that could have a direct impact on the dosiomic features such studies seek to extract. Is it necessary to recalculate planned dose distributions using a common algorithm if retrospective datasets from different institutions are included? Does a change in dose calculation grid size part way through a retrospective cohort, introduce bias in the extracted dosiomic features? The purpose of this study is to assess the stability of dosiomic features against variations in three factors: the dose calculation algorithm type, version, and dose grid size.
methodsDose distributions for 27 prostate patients who received EBRT were recalculated in the Eclipse Treatment Planning System (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, USA) using two algorithms (AAA and Acuros XB), two versions (version 13.6 and 15.6), and three dose grids (2, 2.5 s, and 3 mm) - 12 dose distributions for each patient. Ninety-three dosiomic features were extracted from each dose distribution and each of the following regions-of-interest: high dose PTV (PTV_High), 1 cm rind around PTV_High (PTV_Ring), low dose PTV (PTV_Low), rectum, and bladder using PyRadiomics. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for each dosiomic feature. Hierarchical clustering was used to group features with high and low variability. Three-way repeated measures ANOVA was performed to investigate the effect of the three different factors on dosiomic features that were classified with high variation. Additionally, CVs were calculated for cumulative dose volume histograms (DVHs) to test their ability to detect the variations in dose distributions.
resultsFor PTV_Ring, PTV_Low, and rectum, all the dosiomic features had low CV (average CV ≤ 0.26) across the varying dose calculation conditions. For PTV_High, six dosiomic features showed CV > 0.26, and dose calculation algorithm type and grid size were the major sources of within-patient variation. For bladder, one dosiomic feature had average CV > 0.26, but none of the three dose calculation-related factors led to a statistically significant variation. The CVs for all the DVHs were very small (CV < 0.05).
conclusionFor all the regions-of-interest examined in this study, the majority of the dosiomic features were stable against variations in dose calculation; however, some of the dosiomic features for PTV_High and bladder had significant variations due to differences in dose calculation details. DVHs were detecting less variation than dosiomic features.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.