1
|
Wahid KA, Kaffey ZY, Farris DP, Humbert-Vidan L, Moreno AC, Rasmussen M, Ren J, Naser MA, Netherton TJ, Korreman S, Balakrishnan G, Fuller CD, Fuentes D, Dohopolski MJ. Artificial intelligence uncertainty quantification in radiotherapy applications - A scoping review. Radiother Oncol 2024; 201:110542. [PMID: 39299574 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110542] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2024] [Revised: 08/18/2024] [Accepted: 09/09/2024] [Indexed: 09/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiotherapy (RT) is expanding rapidly. However, there exists a notable lack of clinician trust in AI models, underscoring the need for effective uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods. The purpose of this study was to scope existing literature related to UQ in RT, identify areas of improvement, and determine future directions. METHODS We followed the PRISMA-ScR scoping review reporting guidelines. We utilized the population (human cancer patients), concept (utilization of AI UQ), context (radiotherapy applications) framework to structure our search and screening process. We conducted a systematic search spanning seven databases, supplemented by manual curation, up to January 2024. Our search yielded a total of 8980 articles for initial review. Manuscript screening and data extraction was performed in Covidence. Data extraction categories included general study characteristics, RT characteristics, AI characteristics, and UQ characteristics. RESULTS We identified 56 articles published from 2015 to 2024. 10 domains of RT applications were represented; most studies evaluated auto-contouring (50 %), followed by image-synthesis (13 %), and multiple applications simultaneously (11 %). 12 disease sites were represented, with head and neck cancer being the most common disease site independent of application space (32 %). Imaging data was used in 91 % of studies, while only 13 % incorporated RT dose information. Most studies focused on failure detection as the main application of UQ (60 %), with Monte Carlo dropout being the most commonly implemented UQ method (32 %) followed by ensembling (16 %). 55 % of studies did not share code or datasets. CONCLUSION Our review revealed a lack of diversity in UQ for RT applications beyond auto-contouring. Moreover, we identified a clear need to study additional UQ methods, such as conformal prediction. Our results may incentivize the development of guidelines for reporting and implementation of UQ in RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kareem A Wahid
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zaphanlene Y Kaffey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David P Farris
- Research Medical Library, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Laia Humbert-Vidan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amy C Moreno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Jintao Ren
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Mohamed A Naser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Tucker J Netherton
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stine Korreman
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | | | - Clifton D Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David Fuentes
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Michael J Dohopolski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zang Y, Guo B, Qiu Y, Liu H, Opyrchal M, Lu X. Adaptive phase I-II clinical trial designs identifying optimal biological doses for targeted agents and immunotherapies. Clin Trials 2024; 21:298-307. [PMID: 38205644 PMCID: PMC11132954 DOI: 10.1177/17407745231220661] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
Targeted agents and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment, offering promising options for various cancer types. Unlike traditional therapies the principle of "more is better" is not always applicable to these new therapies due to their unique biomedical mechanisms. As a result, various phase I-II clinical trial designs have been proposed to identify the optimal biological dose that maximizes the therapeutic effect of targeted therapies and immunotherapies by jointly monitoring both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. This review article examines several innovative phase I-II clinical trial designs that utilize accumulated efficacy and toxicity outcomes to adaptively determine doses for subsequent patients and identify the optimal biological dose, maximizing the overall therapeutic effect. Specifically, we highlight three categories of phase I-II designs: efficacy-driven, utility-based, and designs incorporating multiple efficacy endpoints. For each design, we review the dose-outcome model, the definition of the optimal biological dose, the dose-finding algorithm, and the software for trial implementation. To illustrate the concepts, we also present two real phase I-II trial examples utilizing the EffTox and ISO designs. Finally, we provide a classification tree to summarize the designs discussed in this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong Zang
- Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Sciences, School of Medicine, Indiana University
- Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, School of Medicine, Indiana University
| | - Beibei Guo
- Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University
| | - Yingjie Qiu
- Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Sciences, School of Medicine, Indiana University
| | - Hao Liu
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University
| | | | - Xiongbin Lu
- Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, School of Medicine, Indiana University
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wahid KA, Kaffey ZY, Farris DP, Humbert-Vidan L, Moreno AC, Rasmussen M, Ren J, Naser MA, Netherton TJ, Korreman S, Balakrishnan G, Fuller CD, Fuentes D, Dohopolski MJ. Artificial Intelligence Uncertainty Quantification in Radiotherapy Applications - A Scoping Review. MEDRXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES 2024:2024.05.13.24307226. [PMID: 38798581 PMCID: PMC11118597 DOI: 10.1101/2024.05.13.24307226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2024]
Abstract
Background/purpose The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiotherapy (RT) is expanding rapidly. However, there exists a notable lack of clinician trust in AI models, underscoring the need for effective uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods. The purpose of this study was to scope existing literature related to UQ in RT, identify areas of improvement, and determine future directions. Methods We followed the PRISMA-ScR scoping review reporting guidelines. We utilized the population (human cancer patients), concept (utilization of AI UQ), context (radiotherapy applications) framework to structure our search and screening process. We conducted a systematic search spanning seven databases, supplemented by manual curation, up to January 2024. Our search yielded a total of 8980 articles for initial review. Manuscript screening and data extraction was performed in Covidence. Data extraction categories included general study characteristics, RT characteristics, AI characteristics, and UQ characteristics. Results We identified 56 articles published from 2015-2024. 10 domains of RT applications were represented; most studies evaluated auto-contouring (50%), followed by image-synthesis (13%), and multiple applications simultaneously (11%). 12 disease sites were represented, with head and neck cancer being the most common disease site independent of application space (32%). Imaging data was used in 91% of studies, while only 13% incorporated RT dose information. Most studies focused on failure detection as the main application of UQ (60%), with Monte Carlo dropout being the most commonly implemented UQ method (32%) followed by ensembling (16%). 55% of studies did not share code or datasets. Conclusion Our review revealed a lack of diversity in UQ for RT applications beyond auto-contouring. Moreover, there was a clear need to study additional UQ methods, such as conformal prediction. Our results may incentivize the development of guidelines for reporting and implementation of UQ in RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kareem A. Wahid
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Zaphanlene Y. Kaffey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David P. Farris
- Research Medical Library, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Laia Humbert-Vidan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amy C. Moreno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Jintao Ren
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Mohamed A. Naser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tucker J. Netherton
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stine Korreman
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | | | - Clifton D. Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David Fuentes
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michael J. Dohopolski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|