Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36880063›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2023

Machine learning for normal tissue complication probability prediction: Predictive power with versatility and easy implementation.

Pratik Samant, Dirk de Ruysscher, Frank Hoebers, Richard Canters, Emma Hall, Chris Nutting, Tim Maughan, Frank Van den Heuvel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cardiac substructure dosimetry in thoracic radiotherapy: moving beyond mean heart dose and toward precision cardiac risk mitigation.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Pratik SamantOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Radiotherapy Physics, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Dirk de RuysscherMaastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Frank HoebersMaastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Richard CantersMaastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Emma HallInstitute of Cancer Research, Division of Clinical Studies, Sutton, United Kingdom.
Chris NuttingInstitute of Cancer Research, Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Sutton, United Kingdom.
Tim MaughanUniversity of Oxford, Department of Oncology, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Frank Van den HeuvelUniversity of Oxford, Department of Oncology, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21993Cancer Research UK 25351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: A popular Normal tissue Complication (NTCP) model deployed to predict radiotherapy (RT) toxicity is the Lyman-Burman Kutcher (LKB) model of tissue complication. Despite the LKB model's popularity, it can suffer from numerical instability and considers only the generalized mean dose (GMD) to an organ. Machine learning (ML) algorithms can potentially offer superior predictive power of the LKB model, and with fewer drawbacks. Here we examine the numerical characteristics and predictive power of the LKB model and compare these with those of ML. Materials and methods: Both an LKB model and ML models were used to predict G2 Xerostomia on patients following RT for head and neck cancer, using the dose volume histogram of parotid glands as the input feature. Model speed, convergence characteristics and predictive power was evaluated on an independent training set. Results: We found that only global optimization algorithms could guarantee a convergent and predictive LKB model. At the same time our results showed that ML models remained unconditionally convergent and predictive, while staying robust to gradient descent optimization. ML models outperform LKB in Brier score and accuracy but compare to LKB in ROC-AUC. Conclusion: We have demonstrated that ML models can quantify NTCP better than or as well as LKB models, even for a toxicity that the LKB model is particularly well suited to predict. ML models can offer this performance while offering fundamental advantages in model convergence, speed, and flexibility, and so could offer an alternative to the LKB model that could potentially be used in clinical RT planning decisions.

Indexed as

AB, AdaBooost (aka Adaptive Boosting)Clinical radiobiologyDA, Dual AnnealingDE, Differential EvolutionDT, Decision TreeDVH, Dose Volume HistogramGB, Gradient BoostGD, Gradient DescentGMD, Generalized Mean DoseHead and Neck CancerLKB, Lyman Kutcher BurmanLR, Logistic RegressionMachine LearningML, Machine LearningNormal Tissue Complication ProbabilityNTCP, Normal Tissue Complication ProbabilityOAR, Organ(s) at RiskRadiotherapyRT, RadiotherapyTreatment PlanningXerostomia

Identifiers

PMID36880063
PMCPMC9984444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.