$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who are not surgical candidates are offered intra-arterial therapies1,2,3. There is no single metric that determines whether a patient will respond to an intra-arterial therapy before the treatment is administered. The objective of this study was to demonstrate a method that predicts treatment response by applying methods from machine learning. Such models provide guidance to practitioners and patients when choosing whether to proceed with a treatment.
The protocol entails a reproducible process for training and updating a model starting from primary patient data (clinical notes, demographics, laboratory data, and imaging). The data is initially parsed for specific features, with each patient represented by a set of binary features and a binary outcome target label. The outcome label is determined using an established imaging-based response criterion for hepatocellular therapy4,5,6,7. The features and target labels are passed to machine learning software that learns the mapping between features and outcomes under a specific learning model (logistic regression or random forest)8,9,10. Similar techniques have been applied in radiology and other areas of cancer research for diagnosis and treatment prediction11,12,13.
The method adapts techniques from computer science to the field of interventional radiology. Traditional significance studies in interventional radiology, and medicine in general, rely upon mono- or oligo- feature analyses. For example, the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease incorporates five clinical metrics to assess the extent of liver disease. The benefit of the proposed method is the ability to add features liberally; twenty-five features are considered in the example analysis. Additional features may be added as desired.
The technique may be applied to other radiographic interventions where pre- and post- intervention imaging data are available. For example, outcomes following percutaneous treatments could be predicted in a similar manner. The main limitation of the study is the need to manual curate features for inclusion in the model. Data curation and feature extraction is time-consuming for the practitioner and may impede clinical adoption of such machine learning models.