Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36739920›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2023

Predictive Model of Liver Toxicity to Aid the Personalized Selection of Proton Versus Photon Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

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

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Recent advances in applying machine learning to proton radiotherapy.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. NRG Oncology White Paper on the Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ibrahim ChamseddineDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: ichamseddine@mgh.harvard.edu.
Yejin KimKorean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, South Korea.
Brian DeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Issam El NaqaDepartment of Machine Learning, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Dan G DudaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
John A WolfgangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jennifer PursleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jennifer Y WoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Theodore S HongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harald PaganettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Eugene J KoayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Clemens GrassbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology · KRMoffitt Cancer Center · US

Funding

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 KOOY, HANNE M · 2014 to 2018
$11.2M
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 R21 CA241918NCI NIH HHS U19 CA021239
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOur objective was to develop an externally validated model for predicting liver toxicity after radiation therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that can integrate both photon and proton dose distributions with patient-specific characteristics. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Training data consisted of all patients with HCC treated between 2008 and 2019 at our institution (n = 117, 60%/40% photon/proton). We developed a shallow convolutional neural network (CNN) to predict posttreatment liver dysfunction from the differential dose-volume histogram (DVH) and baseline liver metrics. To reduce bias and improve robustness, we used ensemble learning (CNNE). After a preregistered study analysis plan, we evaluated stability using internal bootstrap resampling and generalizability using a data set from a different institution (n = 88). Finally, we implemented a class activation map method to characterize the critical DVH subregions and benchmarked the model against logistic regression and XGBoost. The models were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the precision-recall curve.

resultsThe CNNE model showed similar internal performance and robustness compared with the benchmarks. CNNE exceeded the benchmark models in external validation, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78 versus 0.55 to 0.70, and an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.6 versus 0.43 to 0.52. The model showed improved predictive power in the photon group, excellent specificity in both modalities, and high sensitivity in the photon high-risk group. Models built solely on DVHs confirm outperformance of the CNNE and indicate that the proposed structure efficiently abstracts features from both proton and photon dose distributions. The activation map method demonstrates the importance of the low-dose bath and its interaction with low liver function at baseline.

conclusionsWe developed and externally validated a patient-specific prediction model for hepatic toxicity based on the entire DVH and clinical factors that can integrate both photon and proton therapy cohorts. This model complements the new American Society for Radiation Oncology clinical practice guidelines and could support value-driven integration of proton therapy into the management of HCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsProton TherapyHumansProtonsRadiotherapy DosageProtons

Identifiers

PMID36739920
PMCPMC12273456
OpenAlexW4319066283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.