» Articles » PMID: 37444573

Feature Importance Analysis of a Deep Learning Model for Predicting Late Bladder Toxicity Occurrence in Uterine Cervical Cancer Patients

Overview
Journal Cancers (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Oncology
Date 2023 Jul 14
PMID 37444573
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

(1) In this study, we developed a deep learning (DL) model that can be used to predict late bladder toxicity. (2) We collected data obtained from 281 uterine cervical cancer patients who underwent definitive radiation therapy. The DL model was trained using 16 features, including patient, tumor, treatment, and dose parameters, and its performance was compared with that of a multivariable logistic regression model using the following metrics: accuracy, prediction, recall, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). In addition, permutation feature importance was calculated to interpret the DL model for each feature, and the lightweight DL model was designed to focus on the top five important features. (3) The DL model outperformed the multivariable logistic regression model on our dataset. It achieved an F1-score of 0.76 and an AUROC of 0.81, while the corresponding values for the multivariable logistic regression were 0.14 and 0.43, respectively. The DL model identified the doses for the most exposed 2 cc volume of the bladder (BD) as the most important feature, followed by BD and the ICRU bladder point. In the case of the lightweight DL model, the F-score and AUROC were 0.90 and 0.91, respectively. (4) The DL models exhibited superior performance in predicting late bladder toxicity compared with the statistical method. Through the interpretation of the model, it further emphasized its potential for improving patient outcomes and minimizing treatment-related complications with a high level of reliability.

Citing Articles

Analysis of WSI Images by Hybrid Systems with Fusion Features for Early Diagnosis of Cervical Cancer.

Hamdi M, Senan E, Awaji B, Olayah F, Jadhav M, Alalayah K Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(15).

PMID: 37568901 PMC: 10416962. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13152538.

References
1.
Luo Y, Tseng H, Cui S, Wei L, Ten Haken R, El Naqa I . Balancing accuracy and interpretability of machine learning approaches for radiation treatment outcomes modeling. BJR Open. 2020; 1(1):20190021. PMC: 7592485. DOI: 10.1259/bjro.20190021. View

2.
Appelt A, Elhaminia B, Gooya A, Gilbert A, Nix M . Deep Learning for Radiotherapy Outcome Prediction Using Dose Data - A Review. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2021; 34(2):e87-e96. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.12.002. View

3.
Cox J, Stetz J, Pajak T . Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995; 31(5):1341-6. DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(95)00060-C. View

4.
Matsuo K, Purushotham S, Jiang B, Mandelbaum R, Takiuchi T, Liu Y . Survival outcome prediction in cervical cancer: Cox models vs deep-learning model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 220(4):381.e1-381.e14. PMC: 7526040. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.12.030. View

5.
Pella A, Cambria R, Riboldi M, Jereczek-Fossa B, Fodor C, Zerini D . Use of machine learning methods for prediction of acute toxicity in organs at risk following prostate radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2011; 38(6):2859-67. DOI: 10.1118/1.3582947. View