Random Forest Modeling of Acute Toxicity in Anal Cancer: Effects of Peritoneal Cavity Contouring Approaches on Model Performance

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to analyze the effect on gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity models when their dose-volume metrics predictors are derived from segmentations of the peritoneal cavity after different contouring approaches.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A random forest machine learning approach was used to predict acute grade ≥3 GI toxicity from dose-volume metrics and clinicopathologic factors for 246 patients (toxicity incidence = 9.5%) treated with definitive chemoradiation for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. Three types of random forest models were constructed based on different bowel bag segmentation approaches: (1) physician-delineated after Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines, (2) autosegmented by a deep learning model (nnU-Net) following RTOG guidelines, and (3) autosegmented but spanning the entire bowel space. Each model type was evaluated using repeated cross-validation (100 iterations; 50%/50% training/test split). The performance of the models was assessed using area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) and the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC), as well as optimal F1 score.

RESULTS

When following RTOG guidelines, the models based on the nnU-Net auto segmentations (mean values: AUROCC, 0.71 ± 0.07; AUPRC, 0.42 ± 0.09; F1 score, 0.46 ± 0.08) significantly outperformed (P < .001) those based on the physician-delineated contours (mean values: AUROCC, 0.67 ± 0.07; AUPRC, 0.34 ± 0.08; F1 score, 0.36 ± 0.07). When spanning the entire bowel space, the performance of the autosegmentation models improved considerably (mean values: AUROCC, 0.87 ± 0.05; AUPRC, 0.70 ± 0.09; F1 score, 0.68 ± 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Random forest models were superior at predicting acute grade ≥3 GI toxicity when based on RTOG-defined bowel bag autosegmentations rather than physician-delineated contours. Models based on autosegmentations spanning the entire bowel space show further considerable improvement in model performance. The results of this study should be further validated using an external data set.

Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is 'Clinically Acceptable'?

Developers and users of artificial-intelligence-based tools for automatic contouring and treatment planning in radiotherapy are expected to assess clinical acceptability of these tools. However, what is 'clinical acceptability'? Quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used to assess this ill-defined concept, all of which have advantages and disadvantages or limitations. The approach chosen may depend on the goal of the study as well as on available resources. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of 'clinical acceptability' and how they can move us toward a standard for defining clinical acceptability of new autocontouring and planning tools.