Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Outlier Identification in Radiation Therapy Knowledge Modeling

Y Sheng

Y Sheng1*, Y Ge2 , L Yuan3 , T Li4 , F Yin3 , Q Wu3 , (1) Duke University, Durham, NC, (2) University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, (3) Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, (4) Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA


SU-F-T-97 (Sunday, July 31, 2016) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose:To investigate the impact of outliers on knowledge modeling in radiation therapy, and develop a systematic workflow for identifying and analyzing geometric and dosimetric outliers using pelvic cases.

Methods:Four groups (G1-G4) of pelvic plans were included: G1 (37 prostate cases), G2 (37 prostate plus lymph node cases), and G3 (37 prostate bed cases) are all clinical IMRT cases. G4 are 10 plans outside G1 re-planned with dynamic-arc to simulate dosimetric outliers.

The workflow involves 2 steps: 1. identify geometric outliers, assess impact and clean up; 2. identify dosimetric outliers, assess impact and clean up.

1. A baseline model was trained with all G1 cases. G2/G3 cases were then individually added to the baseline model as geometric outliers. The impact on the model was assessed by comparing leverage statistic of inliers (G1) and outliers (G2/G3). Receiver-operating-characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed to determine optimal threshold.

2. A separate baseline model was trained with 32 G1 cases. Each G4 case (dosimetric outliers) was then progressively added to perturb this model. DVH predictions were performed using these perturbed models for remaining 5 G1 cases. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculated from predicted DVH were used to evaluate dosimetric outliers’ impact.

Results:The leverage of inliers and outliers was significantly different. The Area-Under-Curve (AUC) for differentiating G2 from G1 was 0.94 (threshold: 0.22) for bladder; and 0.80 (threshold: 0.10) for rectum. For differentiating G3 from G1, the AUC (threshold) was 0.68 (0.09) for bladder, 0.76 (0.08) for rectum. Significant increase in NTCP started from models with 4 dosimetric outliers for bladder (p<0.05), and with only 1 dosimetric outlier for rectum (p<0.05).

Conclusion:We established a systematic workflow for identifying and analyzing geometric and dosimetric outliers, and investigated statistical metrics for detecting. Results validated the necessity for outlier detection and clean-up to enhance model quality in clinical practice.

Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: Research Grant: Varian master research grant

Contact Email: