4.7 Article

Unraveling biophysical interactions of radiation pneumonitis in non-small-cell lung cancer via Bayesian network analysis

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 123, 期 1, 页码 85-92

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.02.004

关键词

Lung cancer; Radiation pneumonitis; Bayesian network analysis; Biophysical interactions

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01 CA059827, R01 CA142840]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In non-small-cell lung cancer radiotherapy, radiation pneumonitis >= grade 2 (RP2) depends on patients' dosimetric, clinical, biological and genomic characteristics. Methods: We developed a Bayesian network (BN) approach to explore its potential for interpreting biophysical signaling pathways influencing RP2 from a heterogeneous dataset including single nucleotide polymorphisms, micro RNAs, cytokines, clinical data, and radiation treatment plans before and during the course of radiotherapy. Model building utilized 79 patients (21 with RP2) with complete data, and model testing used 50 additional patients with incomplete data. A developed large-scale Markov blanket approach selected relevant predictors. Resampling by k-fold cross-validation determined the optimal BN structure. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) measured performance. Results: Pre- and during-treatment BNs identified biophysical signaling pathways from the patients' relevant variables to RP2 risk. Internal cross-validation for the pre-BN yielded an AUC = 0.82 which improved to 0.87 by incorporating during treatment changes. In the testing dataset, the pre- and during AUCs were 0.78 and 0.82, respectively. Conclusions: Our developed BN approach successfully handled a high number of heterogeneous variables in a small dataset, demonstrating potential for unraveling relevant biophysical features that could enhance prediction of RP2, although the current observations would require further independent validation. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据