M.R. Bowers

Evaluation of classification and regression tree (CART) model in weight loss prediction following head and neck cancer radiation therapy

Objective We explore whether a knowledge–discovery approach building a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) prediction model for weight loss (WL) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with radiation therapy (RT) is feasible. Methods and materials HNC patients from 2007 to 2015 were identified from a prospectively collected database Oncospace. Two prediction models at different time points were developed to predict weight loss ≥5 kg at 3 months post-RT by CART algorithm: (1) during RT planning using patient demographic, delineated dose data, planning target volume–organs at risk shape relationships data and (2) at the end of treatment (EOT) using additional on-treatment toxicities and quality of life data. Results Among 391 patients identified, WL predictors during RT planning were International Classification of Diseases diagnosis; dose to masticatory and superior constrictor muscles, larynx, and parotid; and age. At EOT, patient-reported oral intake, diagnosis, N stage, nausea, pain, dose to larynx, parotid, and low-dose planning target volume–larynx distance were significant predictive factors. The area under the curve during RT and EOT was 0.773 and 0.821, respectively. Conclusions We demonstrate the feasibility and potential value of an informatics infrastructure that has facilitated insight into the prediction of WL using the CART algorithm. The prediction accuracy significantly improved with the inclusion of additional treatment-related data and has the potential to be leveraged as a strategy to develop a learning health system.

SU-E-P-26: Oncospace: A Shared Radiation Oncology Database System Designed for Personalized Medicine, Decision Support, and Research

Purpose: Advancement in Radiation Oncology (RO) practice develops through evidence based medicine and clinical trial. Knowledge usable for treatment planning, decision support and research is contained in our clinical data, stored in an Oncospace database. This data store and the tools for populating and analyzing it are compatible with standard RO practice and are shared with collaborating institutions. The question is - what protocol for system development and data sharing within an Oncospace Consortium? We focus our example on the technology and data meaning necessary to share across the Consortium. Methods: Oncospace consists of a database schema, planning and outcome data import and web based analysis tools.1) Database: The Consortium implements a federated data store; each member collects and maintains its own data within an Oncospace schema. For privacy, PHI is contained within a single table, accessible to the database owner.2) Import: Spatial dose data from treatment plans (Pinnacle or DICOM) is imported via Oncolink. Treatment outcomes are imported from an OIS (MOSAIQ).3) Analysis: JHU has built a number of webpages to answer analysis questions. Oncospace data can also be analyzed via MATLAB or SAS queries.These materials are available to Consortium members, who contribute enhancements and improvements. Results: 1) The Oncospace Consortium now consists of RO centers at JHU, UVA, UW and the University of Toronto. These members have successfully installed and populated Oncospace databases with over 1000 patients collectively.2) Members contributing code and getting updates via SVN repository. Errors are reported and tracked via Redmine. Teleconferences include strategizing design and code reviews.3) Successfully remotely queried federated databases to combine multiple institutions’ DVH data for dose-toxicity analysis (see below – data combined from JHU and UW Oncospace). Conclusion: RO data sharing can and has been effected according to the Oncospace Consortium model: http://oncospace.radonc.jhmi.edu/. John Wong - SRA from Elekta; Todd McNutt - SRA from Elekta; Michael Bowers - funded by Elekta

Practical data collection and extraction for big data applications in radiotherapy

The capture of high-quality treatment data and outcomes is necessary in order to learn from our clinical experiences with big data analytics. In radiotherapy, there are several practical challenges to overcome. Practical aspects of data collection are discussed pointing to a need for a culture change in clinical practice to one that captures structured patient-related data in routine care in a prospective manner. Radiation dosimetry and the contoured anatomy must also be captured routinely to represent the best estimate of delivered radiation. The quality and integrity present in the data are critical which poses opportunities to introduce electronic validity checking to improve them. Similarly, data completeness and methods and technology to improve the efficiency and sufficiency of data capture can be introduced. In the manuscript, the types of clinical data are discussed including patient reports, images, biospecimens, treatments, and symptom management. With a data-driven culture, the realization of a learning health system is possible unlocking the potential of big data and its influence on clinical decision-making and hypothesis generation.

A Shape-Based Dose Model for the Prediction of High Grade Radiation Induced Xerostomia for Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Ductal region 73.72 % 84.47 % 58.41 % A control group of organ level DVH features was tested, using D10, D20, ..., D90 for both parotids. The use of shape based dose features was able to improve predictive capability. For each parotid gland, shells were created with outer bounds defined by, 2 mm expansion, no expansion, and 5 mm contraction. Then, shells were partitioned into octants defined by x, y, and z axes, creating 24 substructures per gland (48 per patient). D90 and D20 were computed for each derived structure

MO-G-304-01: FEATURED PRESENTATION: Expanding the Knowledge Base for Data-Driven Treatment Planning: Incorporating Patient Outcome Models

Purpose: To extend the capabilities of knowledge-based treatment planning beyond simple dose queries by incorporating validated patient outcome models. Methods: From an analytic, relational database of 684 head and neck cancer patients, 372 patients were identified having dose data for both left and right parotid glands as well as baseline and follow-up xerostomia assessments. For each existing patient, knowledge-based treatment planning was simulated for by querying the dose-volume histograms and geometric shape relationships (overlap volume histograms) for all other patients. Dose predictions were captured at normalized volume thresholds (NVT) of 0%, 10%, 20, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 85% and were compared with the actual achieved doses using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Next, a logistic regression model was used to predict the maximum severity of xerostomia up to three months following radiotherapy. Baseline xerostomia scores were subtracted from follow-up assessments and were also included in the model. The relative risks from predicted doses and actual doses were computed and compared. Results: The predicted doses for both parotid glands were significantly less than the achieved doses (p < 0.0001), with differences ranging from 830 cGy ± 1270 cGy (0% NVT) to 1673 cGy ± 1197 cGy (30% NVT). The modelled risk of xerostomia ranged from 54% to 64% for achieved doses and from 33% to 51% for the dose predictions. Relative risks varied from 1.24 to 1.87, with maximum relative risk occurring at 85% NVT. Conclusions: Data-driven generation of treatment planning objectives without consideration of the underlying normal tissue complication probability may Result in inferior plans, even if quality metrics indicate otherwise. Inclusion of complication models in knowledge-based treatment planning is necessary in order to close the feedback loop between radiotherapy treatments and patient outcomes. Future work includes advancing and validating complication models in the context of knowledge-based treatment planning. This work is supported by Philips Radiation Oncology Systems.