Evidence Hub

Machine learning-based normal tissue complication probability model for predicting albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade increase in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Prayongrat A, Srimaneekarn N, Thonglert K, Khorprasert C, Amornwichet N, Alisanant P, Shirato H, Kobashi K et al.

Radiation oncology (London, England), 2022

201 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop a normal tissue complication probability model using a machine learning approach (ML-based NTCP) to predict the risk of radiation-induced liver disease in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included 201 HCC patients treated with radiotherapy. The patients' medical records were retrospectively reviewed to obtain the clinical and radiotherapy data. Toxicity was defined by albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade increase. The normal liver dose-volume histogram was reduced to mean liver dose (MLD) based on the fraction size-adjusted equivalent uniform dose (2 Gy/fraction and α/β = 2). Three types of ML-based classification models were used, a penalized logistic regression (PLR), random forest (RF), and gradient-boosted tree (GBT) model. Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Internal validation was performed by 5-fold cross validation and external validation was done in 44 new patients.

RESULTS: Liver toxicity occurred in 87 patients (43.1%). The best individual model was the GBT model using baseline liver function, liver volume, and MLD as inputs and the best overall model was an ensemble of the PLR and GBT models. An AUROC of 0.82 with a standard deviation of 0.06 was achieved for the internal validation. An AUROC of 0.78 with a standard deviation of 0.03 was achieved for the external validation. The behaviors of the best GBT…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 201 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free