Refinement of radiomic results and methodologies is required to ensure progression of the field. In this work, we establish a set of safeguards designed to improve and support current radiomic methodologies through detailed analysis of a radiomic signature. A radiomic model (MW2018) was fitted and externally validated using features extracted from previously reported lung and head and neck (H&N) cancer datasets using gross-tumour-volume contours, as well as from images with randomly permuted voxel index values; i.e. images without meaningful texture. To determine MW2018's added benefit, the prognostic accuracy of tumour volume alone was calculated as a baseline. MW2018 had an external validation concordance index (c-index) of 0.64. However, a similar performance was achieved using features extracted from images with randomized signal intensities (c-index = 0.64 and 0.60 for H&N and lung, respectively). Tumour volume had a c-index = 0.64 and correlated strongly with three of the four model features. It was determined that the signature was a surrogate for tumour volume and that intensity and texture values were not pertinent for prognostication. Our experiments reveal vulnerabilities in radiomic signature development processes and suggest safeguards that can be used to refine methodologies, and ensure productive radiomic development using objective and independent features.

Objectives Although neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy has been widely applied in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), predicting treatment response remains a challenge. We used pretreatment multimodal CT to explore deep learning-based immunochemotherapy response image biomarkers. Methods This study retrospectively obtained non-contrast enhanced and contrast enhancedbubu CT scans of patients with NSCLC who underwent surgery after receiving neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy at multiple centers between August 2019 and February 2023. Deep learning features were extracted from both non-contrast enhanced and contrast enhanced CT scans to construct the predictive models (LUNAI-uCT model and LUNAI-eCT model), respectively. After the feature fusion of these two types of features, a fused model (LUNAI-fCT model) was constructed. The performance of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. SHapley Additive exPlanations analysis was used to quantify the impact of CT imaging features on model prediction. To gain insights into how our model makes predictions, we employed Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping to generate saliency heatmaps. Results The training and validation datasets included 113 patients from Center A at the 8:2 ratio, and the test dataset included 112 patients (Center B n=73, Center C n=20, Center D n=19). In the test dataset, the LUNAI-uCT, LUNAI-eCT, and LUNAI-fCT models achieved AUCs of 0.762 (95% CI 0.654 to 0.791), 0.797 (95% CI 0.724 to 0.844), and 0.866 (95% CI 0.821 to 0.883), respectively. Conclusions By extracting deep learning features from contrast enhanced and non-contrast enhanced CT, we constructed the LUNAI-fCT model as an imaging biomarker, which can non-invasively predict pathological complete response in neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy for NSCLC.

Purpose: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for radiotherapy target delineation, image guidance, and treatment response monitoring. Recent studies have shown that an entire external x-ray radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP) workflow for brain tumor or prostate cancer patients based only on MRI reference images is feasible. This study aims to show that a MRI-only based RTP workflow is also feasible for proton beam therapy plans generated in MRI-based substitute computed tomography (sCT) images of the head and the pelvis. Methods: The sCTs were constructed for ten prostate cancer and ten brain tumor patients primarily by transforming the intensity values of in-phase MR images to Hounsfield units (HUs) with a dual model HU conversion technique to enable heterogeneous tissue representation. HU conversion models for the pelvis were adopted from previous studies, further extended in this study also for head MRI by generating anatomical site-specific conversion models (a new training data set of ten other brain patients). This study also evaluated two other types of simplified sCT: dual bulk density (for bone and water) and homogeneous (water only). For every clinical case, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans robustly optimized in standard planning CTs were calculated in sCT for evaluation, and vice versa. Overall dose agreement was evaluated using dose–volume histogram parameters and 3D gamma criteria. Results: In heterogeneous sCTs, the mean absolute errors in HUs were 34 (soft tissues: 13, bones: 92) and 42 (soft tissues: 9, bones: 97) in the head and in the pelvis, respectively. The maximum absolute dose differences relative to CT in the brain tumor clinical target volume (CTV) were 1.4% for heterogeneous sCT, 1.8% for dual bulk sCT, and 8.9% for homogenous sCT. The corresponding maximum differences in the prostate CTV were 0.6%, 1.2%, and 3.6%, respectively. The percentages of dose points in the head and pelvis passing 1% and 1 mm gamma index criteria were over 91%, 85%, and 38% with heterogeneous, dual bulk, and homogeneous sCTs, respectively. There were no significant changes to gamma index pass rates for IMPT plans first optimized in CT and then calculated in heterogeneous sCT versus IMPT plans first optimized in heterogeneous sCT and then calculated on standard CT. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that proton therapy dose calculations on heterogeneous sCTs are in good agreement with plans generated with standard planning CT. An MRI-only based RTP workflow is feasible in IMPT for brain tumors and prostate cancers.

The aims of this study are to evaluate the stability of radiomic features from Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) maps of cervical cancer with respect to: (1) reproducibility in inter-observer delineation, and (2) image pre-processing (normalization/quantization) prior to feature extraction. Two observers manually delineated the tumor on ADC maps derived from pre-treatment diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance imaging of 81 patients with FIGO stage IB-IVA cervical cancer. First-order, shape, and texture features were extracted from the original and filtered images considering 5 different normalizations (four taken from the available literature, and one based on urine ADC) and two different quantization techniques (fixed-bin widths from 0.05 to 25, and fixed-bin count). Stability of radiomic features was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC): poor (ICC < 0.75); good (0.75 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.89), and excellent (ICC ≥ 0.90). Dependencies of the features with tumor volume were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient (ρ). The approach using urine-normalized values together with a smaller bin width (0.05) was the most reproducible (428/552, 78% features with ICC ≥ 0.75); the fixed-bin count approach was the least (215/552, 39% with ICC ≥ 0.75). Without normalization, using a fixed bin width of 25, 348/552 (63%) of features had an ICC ≥ 0.75. Overall, 26% (range 25-30%) of the features were volume-dependent (ρ ≥ 0.6). None of the volume-independent shape features were found to be reproducible. Applying normalization prior to features extraction increases the reproducibility of ADC-based radiomics features. When normalization is applied, a fixed-bin width approach with smaller widths is suggested.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has great potential to transform the clinical workflow of radiotherapy. Since the introduction of deep neural networks (DNNs), many AI-based methods have been proposed to address challenges in different aspects of radiotherapy. Commercial vendors have started to release AI-based tools that can be readily integrated to the established clinical workflow. To show the recent progress in AI-aided radiotherapy, we have reviewed AI-based studies in five major aspects of radiotherapy, including image reconstruction, image registration, image segmentation, image synthesis, and automatic treatment planning. In each section, we summarized and categorized the recently published methods, followed by a discussion of the challenges, concerns, and future development. Given the rapid development of AI-aided radiotherapy, the efficiency and effectiveness of radiotherapy in the future could be substantially improved through intelligent automation of various aspects of radiotherapy.