Do We Need to Add the Type of Treatment Planning System, Dose Calculation Grid Size, and CT Density Curve to Predictive Models?

<b>Background:</b> Generalizability and domain dependency are critical challenges in developing predictive models for healthcare, particularly in medical diagnostics and radiation oncology. Predictive models designed to assess tumor recurrence rely on comprehensive and high-quality datas...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Reza Reiazi, Surendra Prajapati, Leonardo Che Fru, Dongyeon Lee, Mohammad Salehpour
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2025-03-01
Series:Diagnostics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/6/786
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850205155226550272
author Reza Reiazi
Surendra Prajapati
Leonardo Che Fru
Dongyeon Lee
Mohammad Salehpour
author_facet Reza Reiazi
Surendra Prajapati
Leonardo Che Fru
Dongyeon Lee
Mohammad Salehpour
author_sort Reza Reiazi
collection DOAJ
description <b>Background:</b> Generalizability and domain dependency are critical challenges in developing predictive models for healthcare, particularly in medical diagnostics and radiation oncology. Predictive models designed to assess tumor recurrence rely on comprehensive and high-quality datasets, encompassing treatment planning parameters, imaging protocols, and patient-specific data. However, domain dependency, arising from variations in dose calculation algorithms, computed tomography (CT) density conversion curves, imaging modalities, and institutional protocols, can significantly undermine model reliability and clinical utility. <b>Methods:</b> This study evaluated dose calculation differences in the head and neck cancer treatment plans of 19 patients using two treatment planning systems, Pinnacle 9.10 and RayStation 11, with similar dose calculation algorithms. Variations in the dose grid size and CT density conversion curves were assessed for their impact on domain dependency. <b>Results:</b> Results showed that dose grid size differences had a more significant influence within RayStation than Pinnacle, while CT curve variations introduced potential domain discrepancies. The findings underscore the critical role of precise and standardized treatment planning in enhancing the reliability of predictive modeling for tumor recurrence assessment. <b>Conclusions:</b> Incorporating treatment planning parameters, such as dose distribution and target volumes, as explicit features in model training can mitigate the impact of domain dependency and enhance prediction accuracy. Solutions such as multi-institutional data harmonization and domain adaptation techniques are essential to improve model generalizability and robustness. These strategies support the better integration of predictive modeling into clinical workflows, ultimately optimizing patient outcomes and personalized treatment strategies.
format Article
id doaj-art-d615a3fa03b64cc69dc1deafbc40de18
institution OA Journals
issn 2075-4418
language English
publishDate 2025-03-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Diagnostics
spelling doaj-art-d615a3fa03b64cc69dc1deafbc40de182025-08-20T02:11:09ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182025-03-0115678610.3390/diagnostics15060786Do We Need to Add the Type of Treatment Planning System, Dose Calculation Grid Size, and CT Density Curve to Predictive Models?Reza Reiazi0Surendra Prajapati1Leonardo Che Fru2Dongyeon Lee3Mohammad Salehpour4Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USADepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USADepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USADepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USADepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA<b>Background:</b> Generalizability and domain dependency are critical challenges in developing predictive models for healthcare, particularly in medical diagnostics and radiation oncology. Predictive models designed to assess tumor recurrence rely on comprehensive and high-quality datasets, encompassing treatment planning parameters, imaging protocols, and patient-specific data. However, domain dependency, arising from variations in dose calculation algorithms, computed tomography (CT) density conversion curves, imaging modalities, and institutional protocols, can significantly undermine model reliability and clinical utility. <b>Methods:</b> This study evaluated dose calculation differences in the head and neck cancer treatment plans of 19 patients using two treatment planning systems, Pinnacle 9.10 and RayStation 11, with similar dose calculation algorithms. Variations in the dose grid size and CT density conversion curves were assessed for their impact on domain dependency. <b>Results:</b> Results showed that dose grid size differences had a more significant influence within RayStation than Pinnacle, while CT curve variations introduced potential domain discrepancies. The findings underscore the critical role of precise and standardized treatment planning in enhancing the reliability of predictive modeling for tumor recurrence assessment. <b>Conclusions:</b> Incorporating treatment planning parameters, such as dose distribution and target volumes, as explicit features in model training can mitigate the impact of domain dependency and enhance prediction accuracy. Solutions such as multi-institutional data harmonization and domain adaptation techniques are essential to improve model generalizability and robustness. These strategies support the better integration of predictive modeling into clinical workflows, ultimately optimizing patient outcomes and personalized treatment strategies.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/6/786treatment planningpredictive modelingdomain dependencyCT density curvecalculation grid
spellingShingle Reza Reiazi
Surendra Prajapati
Leonardo Che Fru
Dongyeon Lee
Mohammad Salehpour
Do We Need to Add the Type of Treatment Planning System, Dose Calculation Grid Size, and CT Density Curve to Predictive Models?
Diagnostics
treatment planning
predictive modeling
domain dependency
CT density curve
calculation grid
title Do We Need to Add the Type of Treatment Planning System, Dose Calculation Grid Size, and CT Density Curve to Predictive Models?
title_full Do We Need to Add the Type of Treatment Planning System, Dose Calculation Grid Size, and CT Density Curve to Predictive Models?
title_fullStr Do We Need to Add the Type of Treatment Planning System, Dose Calculation Grid Size, and CT Density Curve to Predictive Models?
title_full_unstemmed Do We Need to Add the Type of Treatment Planning System, Dose Calculation Grid Size, and CT Density Curve to Predictive Models?
title_short Do We Need to Add the Type of Treatment Planning System, Dose Calculation Grid Size, and CT Density Curve to Predictive Models?
title_sort do we need to add the type of treatment planning system dose calculation grid size and ct density curve to predictive models
topic treatment planning
predictive modeling
domain dependency
CT density curve
calculation grid
url https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/6/786
work_keys_str_mv AT rezareiazi doweneedtoaddthetypeoftreatmentplanningsystemdosecalculationgridsizeandctdensitycurvetopredictivemodels
AT surendraprajapati doweneedtoaddthetypeoftreatmentplanningsystemdosecalculationgridsizeandctdensitycurvetopredictivemodels
AT leonardochefru doweneedtoaddthetypeoftreatmentplanningsystemdosecalculationgridsizeandctdensitycurvetopredictivemodels
AT dongyeonlee doweneedtoaddthetypeoftreatmentplanningsystemdosecalculationgridsizeandctdensitycurvetopredictivemodels
AT mohammadsalehpour doweneedtoaddthetypeoftreatmentplanningsystemdosecalculationgridsizeandctdensitycurvetopredictivemodels